Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Deicide on January 31, 2008, 07:40:31 PM
-
There is a profound difference between acquiring a picture of the world through dispassionate analysis of the facts and acquiring it through patent emotionality and wishful thinking and only then looking to see if it can survive contact with the facts. Given the gaps in science and given the elasticity of religious thinking, it will always be possible to reconcile the most gratuitous nonsense with our modern scientific world view. This is not the same thing as having scientific reasons to believe in god.
Discuss...
-
Indeed.
-
That's why creationists are doomed. They work backwards. They try to fit the data to a preconceived religious conclusion.
Sort of like what Bush did in the run up to the Iraq war.
-
Religion is our first, our worst, and our stupidest attempt to make sense of the world around us.
Evolution worked on one group of African apes, the hominids, very fast: it enlarged their brains almost instantaneously in evolutionary time.
Overnight, our ancestors woke up with large brains that asked the big questions, yet there were no answers to be found. Hence were invented the gods, spirits, fairies, demons, and other imaginary friends and foes...
The more science advances, the emptier the heavens and hells and spirit worlds become.
God's days are numbered, and the time will come when our descendants will laugh at us for fearing that ridiculous fraud like we laugh at our ancestors for believing the superstitions of their times.
-
Religion is our first, our worst, and our stupidest attempt to make sense of the world around us.
Evolution worked on one group of African apes, the hominids, very fast: it enlarged their brains almost instantaneously in evolutionary time.
Overnight, our ancestors woke up with large brains that asked the big questions, yet there were no answers to be found. Hence were invented the gods, spirits, fairies, demons, and other imaginary friends and foes...
The more science advances, the emptier the heavens and hells and spirit worlds become.
God's days are numbered, and the time will come when our descendants will laugh at us for fearing that ridiculous fraud like we laugh at our ancestors for believing the superstitions of their times.
That was supposed to have happened centuries ago with the so-called "Enlightenment" period. Alas, it was not to be!!
Scientific advances have hardly "numbered" the days of God. In fact, as I've been discussing on another thread, it appears that one particular scientific arena has a nifty habit of verifyiing accounts from a pesky old 66-chapter book, that skeptics once claimed didn't happen, never existed, or were fabricated.
That's why creationists are doomed. They work backwards. They try to fit the data to a preconceived religious conclusion.
The same can be said of evolution, which by admission by many evolutionists (i.e. George Wald), was developed with the "preconceived" conclusion that there is no God.
-
Without actually adhering to a strict fundamentalist religious view - can't one have a sense of wonder and mystery and perhap even a belief in a higher order or power while still being fully grounded in our current scientific understanding of the world.
I don't see any reason for these two beliefs (again not a fundie world view) to be mutually exclusive
Personally, I believe that as our science continues to improve it will reach and offer explanations for areas that we now consider paranormal/spiritual (not religious i.e not random, moralistic rule following)
-
Without actually adhering to a strict fundamentalist religious view - can't one have a sense of wonder and mystery and perhap even a belief in a higher order or power while still being fully grounded in our current scientific understanding of the world.
I don't see any reason for these two beliefs (again not a fundie world view) to be mutually exclusive
Personally, I believe that as our science continues to improve it will reach and offer explanations for areas that we now consider paranormal/spiritual (not religious i.e not random, moralistic rule following)
great post, i think there is some emergent properties in the universe and do to a friends suggestion i have been reading godels incompleteness theorem which kind of leads to some central organizing principle within a system.
i think there is a reason we are alive, that is why there is something rather then nothing, i just dont think its benevolent.
-
great post, i think there is some emergent properties in the universe and do to a friends suggestion i have been reading godels incompleteness theorem which kind of leads to some central organizing principle within a system.
i think there is a reason we are alive, that is why there is something rather then nothing, i just dont think its benevolent.
Whatever reason it might be, it cannot be inferred from the natural structure or happenings of the universe. It needs to fabricated or falsely attributed to something that simply is not the case. Perhaps we will reach a stage where this changes, based on concrete evidence, until then however, it is only wishful thinking to believe there is a purpose to the universe that is discernible to man and involves man.
-
Whatever reason it might be, it cannot be inferred from the natural structure or happenings of the universe. It needs to fabricated or falsely attributed to something that simply is not the case. Perhaps we will reach a stage where this changes, based on concrete evidence, until then however, it is only wishful thinking to believe there is a purpose to the universe that is discernible to man and involves man.
i agree, its certainly wishful thinking and my views on life change with the evidence or my increasing knowledge of the evidence.
i dont think man has anything to do with it, i just think existence has a reason. that reason could just be to exist in itself.
-
The big misconception is that science and religion compete against each other, and this believe, strangly enough, is filled by people coming from both ends. Discussions like that always seem to turn out as huge constructs on a very fragile fundament. I think it's always better to build the fundament first. And this usually means simplifying the subject as far as possible.
The basic question is, does the world only consist of its scientific aspects? If the answer to this question is Yes, all religion, spirituality, philosophy, free will, consciousness, etc. is obsolete. That is because, in this case it is all just programs running in biochemical computers residing in biomechanical machines. So as soon as you say yes to that question, there is no need to debate religion anymore.
If however, your answer to that question is No, you cannot argue anymore with 'scientific evidence' vs. 'religious fantasies'. Because in this case, we are more than just our scientific representation, and thus, what we essentially are is not a subject to science at all.
Now there's an intellectual trap, many scientists fall into without noticing. They believe that scientifically they can prove that there is nothing else to the world than science. This is of course not possible since science only deals with scientific aspects in the first place.
IMO the only possible answer to the original question is No. There are many ways to show that there must be more to the world than its scientific representation. One is that in order for something to manifest, there must be 'something' by which means such existance can emerge, which itself is not part of manifested form. This is dictated by logic and simply by our language.
Welcome, Agnostic Apologist! :P
-
Care to elaborate? One thing is sure, science will and can never answer any of the substantial questions of life, like 'where do we come from'. This is not a question of time, it is a matter of principle. How should a scientific answer to that question look like?
I disagree. 'Where do we come from' is an easily answered question. We are animals, poorly evolved primates. We evolved through the same processes that all animals have. There, question answered. What you choose to do with the answer is up to you.
-
Care to elaborate? One thing is sure, science will and can never answer any of the substantial questions of life, like 'where do we come from'. This is not a question of time, it is a matter of principle. How should a scientific answer to that question look like?
this question is pointless really, we come from no where. its begging an answer.
-
this question is pointless really, we come from no where. its begging an answer.
My point exactly.
For some reason people think that such questions have valid answers or even any answers at all!
Most 'why' questions are ultimately useless and unanswerable; questions are best begun with a how, not a why.
-
The big misconception is that science and religion compete against each other, and this believe, strangly enough, is filled by people coming from both ends. Discussions like that always seem to turn out as huge constructs on a very fragile fundament. I think it's always better to build the fundament first. And this usually means simplifying the subject as far as possible.
The basic question is, does the world only consist of its scientific aspects? If the answer to this question is Yes, all religion, spirituality, philosophy, free will, consciousness, etc. is obsolete. That is because, in this case it is all just programs running in biochemical computers residing in biomechanical machines. So as soon as you say yes to that question, there is no need to debate religion anymore.
If however, your answer to that question is No, you cannot argue anymore with 'scientific evidence' vs. 'religious fantasies'. Because in this case, we are more than just our scientific representation, and thus, what we essentially are is not a subject to science at all.
Now there's an intellectual trap, many scientists fall into without noticing. They believe that scientifically they can prove that there is nothing else to the world than science. This is of course not possible since science only deals with scientific aspects in the first place.
IMO the only possible answer to the original question is No. There are many ways to show that there must be more to the world than its scientific representation. One is that in order for something to manifest, there must be 'something' by which means such existance can emerge, which itself is not part of manifested form. This is dictated by logic and simply by our language.
Good post! Welcome to the board, wavelength! ;D
-
Good post! Welcome to the board, wavelength! ;D
The post was addressed and answered fundy.
-
IMO this is not an answer to the question. When you try to answer the question biologically, you will always end up with the next question: Where do animals come from, etc. At some point you will end up with the question of the beginning of the universe or better, with the question of existance itself. How do you want to answer this question scientifically? All theories that are out there can never answer the final question. E.g. where did the big bang come from, etc.
However, I think we do not have to go as far as that, since for me it is evident that human beings are more than their biological (resp. scientific) aspects. Yes, biologically we are animals, and the scientific model for an animal is a biomechanical machine with a biochemical computer. But this model can never answer the question of human consciousness.
You have just answered your own question.
Why questions, as I have stated, particularly those concerning existence, are useless because the answer will always have to be contrived. Start every question with a how, not a why.
Ich weiss, dass Du dies verstehst...
Warum-Fragen, wie schon gesagt, insbesondere jene, die mit menschlichem Dasein zu tun haben, sind zwecklos und ohne Antwort, da deren Antwort stets erfunden werden muss. Fang jede Frage mit einem Wie an, nicht einem Warum.
-
This is basically the world view of the enlightenment. The basic statement is 'there is no absolute truth'. It stems from their believe that truth can only be found in science and since absolute truth can never be found there (by definition of science), it cannot be found at all.
The problem with the statement 'there is no absolute truth' is that it is self-contradictory.
We are still working within the framework that truth cannot be quantified or qualified, which in science, it can.
Die Anthropologie hat schon mehrmals die Grundlagen der Religion und deren Rolle in der Welt geklaert.
-
e to go as far as that, since for me it is evident that human beings are more than their biological (resp. scientific) aspects. Yes, biologically we are animals, and the scientific model for an animal is a biomechanical machine with a biochemical computer. But this model can never answer the question of human consciousness.
Fuck off noob! That better?
Your arguments rests on a presumptuous assumption, namely that consciousness exists. Why don't you define consciousness for me? You're also falling into the classic trap of defining a god of the gaps. We don't understand consciousness therefore it must be created by god and be beyond science...
-
Fuck off noob! That better?
Your arguments rests on a presumptuous assumption, namely that consciousness exists. Why don't you define consciousness for me? You're also falling into the classic trap of defining a god of the gaps. We don't understand consciousness therefore it must be created by god and be beyond science...
That too.... ;D
-
I think some disambiguation must take place here. First of all, science does not produce any truth, it produces scientific theories based on certain (always partial) models of the world. Scientific findings are of course based on 'empirical facts', which can be quantified. The scientific method is very simple and beautiful, but is restricted to producing theories about scientific aspects of the world.
Of course, if one is content with that, that's fine. As soon as you want to go beyond these boundaries, you have no other choice than turning to philosophy or theology. IMO, as soon as you talk about things like consciousness, intelligence, ethics, God, etc., you must leave the realm of science. It is a misconception that philosophy and theology are not based on reality, the difference is just that they do not come with the stringent restrictions of natural science.
No offense but Anthropologie is as wishy-washy as a science can get. Most of the time it is a weird combination of history, biology, sociology, science and a bunch of other stuff, trying to imitate philosophy. The problem is that when you investigate religion merely in a historic or sociologic context, you are determined to miss the point in the first place.
Bei Zeus, woher kommst Du Mann! :o
-
Thanks ;DIt's a given fact that consciousness exists, simply because I know that I am conscious, which is the very definition of it. You know that you exist, don't you? Even if we argue that the world around us may or may not exist, even if it would all be just a dream, there is still a conscious entity experiencing this dream. The argument that consciousness could be an illusion is self-contradictory. That is because I must already pre-assume a conscious entity which could be tricked into thinking it is conscious.Not at all. First of all, I did not say that we don't understand consciousness. I said it cannot be explained scientifically. It can of course be tackled philosophically. And I am very well aware of the fact that this does not necessarily prove the existance of God, I never said that. But you cannot rule out the possibility by means of science.
Fuck off European scumbag!
(let's see if he will finally reveal his country of origin)....
-
Good question ;D
Was ist mit der Geheimnistuerei?
Tu viens d'ou alors?!
-
I meant the question in a holistic sense ;)
I am from Austria. Not that I think it matters much.
It does matter because you eat Weisswurst mit suessem Senf....and we all know what that means..... :o
-
Da muss ich dich enttäuschen, das sind die Bayern. Wir fressen Wiener Schnitzel und G'selchtes mit Sauerkraut ;D
Gotta disapoint you there, those are the bavarians. We eat Wiener Schnitzel and cured pork with sauerkraut ;D
Well, OK sometimes we do eat Weisswurst, but I can't stand it.
I think now we're off-topic as far as it can get.
You are wrong...Weisswurst is integral to understanding the nature of Dasein...
-
Thanks ;DIt's a given fact that consciousness exists, simply because I know that I am conscious, which is the very definition of it. You know that you exist, don't you? Even if we argue that the world around us may or may not exist, even if it would all be just a dream, there is still a conscious entity experiencing this dream. The argument that consciousness could be an illusion is self-contradictory. That is because I must already pre-assume a conscious entity which could be tricked into thinking it is conscious.Not at all. First of all, I did not say that we don't understand consciousness. I said it cannot be explained scientifically. It can of course be tackled philosophically. And I am very well aware of the fact that this does not necessarily prove the existance of God, I never said that. But you cannot rule out the possibility by means of science.
We fundamentally disagree. Consciousness as you have defined it represents self awareness or recursive thought. That's something many non human species including computer programs can do. You're ascribing magical properties to consciousness that simply aren't there. Like many gnostics, you're using it as a wedge to separate the physical world from the spiritual one. As far as I am concerned, this requires the same leap of faith that believing in the divinity of Jesus.
You can go down the platonic route and argue that the existence of an idea implies it's actual existence. In that case, I've got a large pink dragon in my living in my garage.
My very subjective and somewhat unsubstantiated opinion is that most philosophy is shit. Starting with Aristotle and into the present day, philosophy has been at odds with science and has been used to justify horrendous things such as slavery, racism and genocide. Philosophy is an approximation to science, just as science is an approximation to reality.
-
We fundamentally disagree. Consciousness as you have defined it represents self awareness or recursive thought. That's something many non human species including computer programs can do.
We certainly disagree here. No computer ever had a 'recursive thought'. The precondition for thought as in human thought (the only one we know) is consciousness. Same goes for awareness or self-awareness. A computer doesn't have a thought, you always pre-asume a conscious entity when talking about a thought, since there must be 'someone' having the thought. There are processes going on in a computer, setup by humans, that's it.
You're ascribing magical properties to consciousness that simply aren't there. Like many gnostics, you're using it as a wedge to separate the physical world from the spiritual one. As far as I am concerned, this requires the same leap of faith that believing in the divinity of Jesus. You can go down the platonic route and argue that the existence of an idea implies it's actual existence. In that case, I've got a large pink dragon in my living in my garage.
I think it's the other way round. AI advocates e.g. try to assign properties to machines that should be magically added to them ones a certain structural level is reached. The fact remains that a machine is a machine and there is nothing in there that could somehow magically gain awareness or consciousness.
My very subjective and somewhat unsubstantiated opinion is that most philosophy is shit. Starting with Aristotle and into the present day, philosophy has been at odds with science and has been used to justify horrendous things such as slavery, racism and genocide. Philosophy is an approximation to science, just as science is an approximation to reality.
Philosophy is in no way an approximation to science. The only difference is that it doesn't restrict itself to certain methods and languages, and therefore is fit to tackle reality in a holistic way.
-
We fundamentally disagree. Consciousness as you have defined it represents self awareness or recursive thought. That's something many non human species including computer programs can do. You're ascribing magical properties to consciousness that simply aren't there. Like many gnostics, you're using it as a wedge to separate the physical world from the spiritual one. As far as I am concerned, this requires the same leap of faith that believing in the divinity of Jesus.
You can go down the platonic route and argue that the existence of an idea implies it's actual existence. In that case, I've got a large pink dragon in my living in my garage.
My very subjective and somewhat unsubstantiated opinion is that most philosophy is shit. Starting with Aristotle and into the present day, philosophy has been at odds with science and has been used to justify horrendous things such as slavery, racism and genocide. Philosophy is an approximation to science, just as science is an approximation to reality.
Very much agree with you on this....excellent post.
-
We certainly disagree here. No computer ever had a 'recursive thought'.
Nonsense. Any sufficiently sophisticated framework can produce and reason with statements about itself (recursive). This applies to systems of logic, computers or brains. This holds for any recursively enumerable language. Yes many machines absolutely have 'recursive thoughts'.
The precondition for thought as in human thought (the only one we know) is consciousness. Same goes for awareness or self-awareness. A computer doesn't have a thought, you always pre-asume a conscious entity when talking about a thought, since there must be 'someone' having the thought. There are processes going on in a computer, setup by humans, that's it.
Again, what is a thought? Reasoning, reacting to stimulis, deduction, something else? Machines can do all of that, examine their own state and make decisions. Why aren't machines conscious? You are presupposing that there is something immaterial about the human mind that can't be physically represented by a machine. This is superstition, I don't see how this can possibly follow from any observation.
I think it's the other way round. AI advocates e.g. try to assign properties to machines that should be magically added to them ones a certain structural level is reached. The fact remains that a machine is a machine and there is nothing in there that could somehow magically gain awareness or consciousness.
There is no way a machine can obtain consciousness as you have defined because you can't define it in terms of material processes. For you consciousness is immaterial, you are a dualist and you are subject to the classical dualist paradox namely:
If consciousness is immaterial and the body is material, how can consciousness influence the material world? Descartes (brilliant and dead wrong on so many things) thought that the interaction happened within the pineal gland. It was a load of horse shit. I stand by my assertion that stating that consciousness is immaterial requires the same leap of faith as belief in the resurrection.
Philosophy is in no way an approximation to science. The only difference is that it doesn't restrict itself to certain methods and languages, and therefore is fit to tackle reality in a holistic way.
Natural Philosophy is an attempt to understand the natural world. Philosophy does so via human reasoning alone. Science combines human reasoning with observation and experimentation therefore Natural Philosophy is at best an approximation to science.
-
...
The same can be said of evolution, which by admission by many evolutionists (i.e. George Wald), was developed with the "preconceived" conclusion that there is no God.
In the words of John McGlaughlin, "Wrong!"
God cannot be conceptualized by the human mind. It is a rational impossibility. Any universal rational set by its nature is self referential resulting in an endless stream of 'absolute (God) sets'...turtles stacked on turtles.
Evolution does not suffer the same fatality.
God as an explanation for today's mulitiplicitous life forms is itself no good. Forget about where we came from, it is not helpful to say, "God created everything as is." How do we incorporate that wonderful theory into a scientific methodology?
We don't b/c we cannot.
-
...Again, what is a thought? Reasoning, reacting to stimulis, deduction, something else? Machines can do all of that, examine their own state and make decisions. Why aren't machines conscious? You are presupposing that there is something immaterial about the human mind that can't be physically represented by a machine. This is superstition, I don't see how this can possibly follow from any observation.....
Consciousness is not only an awareness of being aware. Human Consciousness is telic. It is directed. We are telosponding creatures with free will that think dialectically and design goals that we can meet. The process of mentation is necessarily affected by our body because it is our body (brain) doing the thinking--our irrational likes and dislikes, anxiety etc all change what some try to distill into some pure thought process/activity---like you said--the false mind/body dichotomy.
-
IMO this is not an answer to the question. When you try to answer the question biologically, you will always end up with the next question: Where do animals come from, etc. At some point you will end up with the question of the beginning of the universe or better, with the question of existance itself. How do you want to answer this question scientifically? All theories that are out there can never answer the final question. E.g. where did the big bang come from, etc.
However, I think we do not have to go as far as that, since for me it is evident that human beings are more than their biological (resp. scientific) aspects. Yes, biologically we are animals, and the scientific model for an animal is a biomechanical machine with a biochemical computer. But this model can never answer the question of human consciousness.
it came from no where, it always was.
your question assumes that everything needs a cause which in itself is impossible due to a infinite chain of causality.
there was nothing before the big bang it has no answer because its a bad question.
its like asking what created time. creation is temporal by definition
-
Nonsense. Any sufficiently sophisticated framework can produce and reason with statements about itself (recursive). This applies to systems of logic, computers or brains. This holds for any recursively enumerable language. Yes many machines absolutely have 'recursive thoughts'.
Again, what is a thought? Reasoning, reacting to stimulis, deduction, something else? Machines can do all of that, examine their own state and make decisions. Why aren't machines conscious? You are presupposing that there is something immaterial about the human mind that can't be physically represented by a machine. This is superstition, I don't see how this can possibly follow from any observation.
Computers basically are just time-savers. Everything that is processed in a computer could as well be calculated by hand with a pencil and a lot of paper. Every process in a computer is predetermined by a set of rules made by man. A machine does not 'examine', 'react', or 'make decisions'. These are the real superstitions, the imagination of some sort of being behind simple, passive processes running in a machine. What observation exactly leads you to the conclusion that a human mind could be physically represented by a machine?
Just as a side note: The fact is that there are no real advances in the field of artificial intelligence, AI has almost become a curse word in the scientific community. Which BTW I think is sad because alot of interesting results might come out of it, just not a conscious being.
There is no way a machine can obtain consciousness as you have defined because you can't define it in terms of material processes.
Well that is simple logic. Since for me it's clear that the human mind cannot be explained via it's scientific aspects, I will not be able to do so.
For you consciousness is immaterial, you are a dualist and you are subject to the classical dualist paradox namely: If consciousness is immaterial and the body is material, how can consciousness influence the material world? Descartes (brilliant and dead wrong on so many things) thought that the interaction happened within the pineal gland. It was a load of horse shit. I stand by my assertion that stating that consciousness is immaterial requires the same leap of faith as belief in the resurrection.
I didn't make the distinction between material and immaterial. I was talking about scientific aspects and non-scientific aspects of the same reality, so there is no dualism. Science is only concerned with the material world, but does not fully explain it either. It is only concerned with aspects of the material world it is able to tackle using the method and language it is restricted to. But as I wrote in my first post, one can take the position that there is nothing more to the world than its scientific aspects. Since IMO, this concept is logically incompatible with the human mind, I would actually need faith to believe that.
As far as material vs. immaterial is concerned: Clearly there is both. Even if you attempt to reduce a thought to neurons firing in the brain (which you could measure), you would still experience the thought and this conscious experience of the thought you will not be able to measure.
Concerning the pineal gland theory, I fully agree, this is nonsense of course.
Natural Philosophy is an attempt to understand the natural world. Philosophy does so via human reasoning alone. Science combines human reasoning with observation and experimentation therefore Natural Philosophy is at best an approximation to science.
How did you come up with this definition of Philosophy vs. Science? Any references?
-
it came from no where, it always was.
Even if it always was (which is just a theory, of course), manifestation of forms still pre-assumes something by which means the manifestation can take place. This is dictated by our language, namely by the word 'existance'.
your question assumes that everything needs a cause which in itself is impossible due to a infinite chain of causality.
The infinite chain of causality only applies to phenomena within known reality, not to existance itself. The concept of existance automatically implies something 'non-existing' as its precondition. The chain ends there since we can say nothing about 'non-existance'.
there was nothing before the big bang it has no answer because its a bad question.
its like asking what created time. creation is temporal by definition
Creation is causal by definition, not temporal. A bad question would be 'what was temporally before the big bang' (if we assume that the big bang theory is vaild, of course). But the question 'what is causally before / beyond / behind the big bang' is valid.
-
Nonsense. Any sufficiently sophisticated framework can produce and reason with statements about itself (recursive). This applies to systems of logic, computers or brains. This holds for any recursively enumerable language. Yes many machines absolutely have 'recursive thoughts'.
Again, what is a thought? Reasoning, reacting to stimulis, deduction, something else? Machines can do all of that, examine their own state and make decisions. Why aren't machines conscious? You are presupposing that there is something immaterial about the human mind that can't be physically represented by a machine. This is superstition, I don't see how this can possibly follow from any observation.
There is no way a machine can obtain consciousness as you have defined because you can't define it in terms of material processes. For you consciousness is immaterial, you are a dualist and you are subject to the classical dualist paradox namely:
If consciousness is immaterial and the body is material, how can consciousness influence the material world? Descartes (brilliant and dead wrong on so many things) thought that the interaction happened within the pineal gland. It was a load of horse shit. I stand by my assertion that stating that consciousness is immaterial requires the same leap of faith as belief in the resurrection.
Natural Philosophy is an attempt to understand the natural world. Philosophy does so via human reasoning alone. Science combines human reasoning with observation and experimentation therefore Natural Philosophy is at best an approximation to science.
That was an awesome post. I just blew my load on the screen....
;D
Seriously...
-
I'll go in reverse order:
How did you come up with this definition of Philosophy vs. Science? Any references?
This is a reflection of the dichotomy between two ancient greek schools of thought: Aristotle and Democritus. Democritus was a natural philosopher and a scientist. He is known for being the first person to posit the atomic theory, the first person to remark that stars in the milky way were other suns, etc. The Ionians like Democritus were recognized experiment and observation as being a doorway to understanding the world whereas Aristotle was convinced that the world could be understood by pure reason.
As far as material vs. immaterial is concerned: Clearly there is both. Even if you attempt to reduce a thought to neurons firing in the brain (which you could measure), you would still experience the thought and this conscious experience of the thought you will not be able to measure.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I do not see a need for the immaterial. The thought in my mind is just a biochemical reaction. In much the same way a machine may monitor itself, my ability to reflect upon a thought is also a biochemical reaction.
Computers basically are just time-savers. Everything that is processed in a computer could as well be calculated by hand with a pencil and a lot of paper. Every process in a computer is predetermined by a set of rules made by man. A machine does not 'examine', 'react', or 'make decisions'. These are the real superstitions, the imagination of some sort of being behind simple, passive processes running in a machine. What observation exactly leads you to the conclusion that a human mind could be physically represented by a machine?
I think you're slightly out of your realm of knowledge here. A computer is a machine that can perform computations like we could via paper and pencil. However that does not imply that it can't do everything a human being can. What's more, computers are not just calculators or time savers, they are UNIVERSAL machines that can perform computation equivalent to any machine we could ever construct (see Church/Turing thesis). This is irrespective of the material they are built of, so I could make a computer out of quantum bits, or out of pigeon droppings, it is still able to compute the same things (although their speeds are markedly different).
Machines do react, examine and make decisions. They can do so deterministically according to pre-programmed rules, or they can do so according to learning, or they can be completely non-deterministic and make choices seemingly at random. I don't see how this differs from a human being.
I didn't make the distinction between material and immaterial. I was talking about scientific aspects and non-scientific aspects of the same reality, so there is no dualism. Science is only concerned with the material world, but does not fully explain it either. It is only concerned with aspects of the material world it is able to tackle using the method and language it is restricted to. But as I wrote in my first post, one can take the position that there is nothing more to the world than its scientific aspects. Since IMO, this concept is logically incompatible with the human mind, I would actually need faith to believe that.
Science does not fully explain the material world, but by it's nature it asymptotically closer with each new finding or discovery. You're saying that there are things out there which definitely cannot be explained by science right now, nor can they ever be. I don't see any evidence that suggests that I could believe that. Some of the pre-Ionian ancient Greeks believed in animism -- that is everyday natural processes like rising of the sun and the blooming of the flowers were directly controlled by God. We eventually came to understand these happenings as the result of natural processes. Aren't you making the same mistake with human thought?
Here's a thought experiment and a question for you. Let's say I could make a complete replica of your brain and body, down o the last molecule. This being is identical to you down to the position of every atom and electrical potential across each synapse. You are positing that there's something inherently missing from that being. Why?
-
That was an awesome post. I just blew my load on the screen....
;D
Seriously...
Lol thanks! ;D
-
We'll have to agree to disagree. I do not see a need for the immaterial. The thought in my mind is just a biochemical reaction. In much the same way a machine may monitor itself, my ability to reflect upon a thought is also a biochemical reaction.
You are talking about a thought and a 'me' ('my mind'). So it is 'you' who is experiencing the thought, right? If the thought is just a biochemical reaction, what exactly is the 'you' which is experiencing the thought? If the thought is just a biochemical reaction, there is no 'you', which could consciously experience it.
I think you're slightly out of your realm of knowledge here. A computer is a machine that can perform computations like we could via paper and pencil. However that does not imply that it can't do everything a human being can. What's more, computers are not just calculators or time savers, they are UNIVERSAL machines that can perform computation equivalent to any machine we could ever construct (see Church/Turing thesis). This is irrespective of the material they are built of, so I could make a computer out of quantum bits, or out of pigeon droppings, it is still able to compute the same things (although their speeds are markedly different).
Side note: I can assure you that I am not at all out of my realm of knowledge (I have studied computer science). Not that I think much education is necessary to understand the very easy principle of computers as you have described:
Everthing you have said here is exactly what I have said: All computers are basically the same (turing machines) and everything they 'do' can also be calculated with a pencil and paper. I agree that this alone does not prove that they would not be a sufficent model for the human mind. But you will agree that there is not much consciousness or intelligence in a pencil and a paper. The only 'intelligence' that is added to the pencil and the paper is a program made by man. Of course only the man is intelligent not the program itself.
Machines do react, examine and make decisions. They can do so deterministically according to pre-programmed rules, or they can do so according to learning, or they can be completely non-deterministic and make choices seemingly at random. I don't see how this differs from a human being.
The problem is that the terms you use imply human abilities. E.g. you say 'They make decisions'. 'They' implies a 'me' which is not there in a machine, since all that happens in a machine is the passive processing of programs. Secondly, something that is deterministic resp. pre-programmed cannot make a decision, simply because - it is pre-programmed. Non-determinism in computers can only be introduced using a random generator in which case you can add a dice to the pencil and the paper. The 'learning' of computers is nothing more than a paraphrase for certain programing techniques, all of which may again be deducted from a simple turing machine. The same goes for all AI-related technologies like fuzzy logic, neuronal networks, self-modifying programs, etc.
Science does not fully explain the material world, but by it's nature it asymptotically closer with each new finding or discovery. You're saying that there are things out there which definitely cannot be explained by science right now, nor can they ever be. I don't see any evidence that suggests that I could believe that. Some of the pre-Ionian ancient Greeks believed in animism -- that is everyday natural processes like rising of the sun and the blooming of the flowers were directly controlled by God. We eventually came to understand these happenings as the result of natural processes. Aren't you making the same mistake with human thought?
Very good point and question. Again the question is are we talking about scientific aspects. The scientific explanation e.g. of sunrise does not compete with a theologic explanation of a divine creation. I agree that this competition was and still is a misunderstanding on both sides. We can get more into this if you want, but the size of this post is getting out of hand already :)
Here's a thought experiment and a question for you. Let's say I could make a complete replica of your brain and body, down to the last molecule. This being is identical to you down to the position of every atom and electrical potential across each synapse. You are positing that there's something inherently missing from that being. Why?
If consciousness somehow finds a way to inhabit this Frankenstein Monster, it would probably be like an identical twin. If not, it would probably be dead immediately. But just like you, I honestly don't know.
The problem with this thought experiment is that what you have in mind is not really a comlpete replica but an already reduced replica consisting only of the scientific aspects of the body according to the current scientific model (atoms, synapses, electrical potentials, etc.). Thus, the correct experiment would be to simulate the body according to the currrent scientific models in a computer (which should be sufficient according to your believes). In this case, I am sure that this 'program' would not be conscious or intelligent, for all the reasons I have already presented.
BTW, very interesting discussion so far!
-
You are talking about a thought and a 'me' ('my mind'). So it is 'you' who is experiencing the thought, right? If the thought is just a biochemical reaction, what exactly is the 'you' which is experiencing the thought? If the thought is just a biochemical reaction, there is no 'you', which could consciously experience it.
Side note: I can assure you that I am not at all out of my realm of knowledge (I have studied computer science). Not that I think much education is necessary to understand the very easy principle of computers as you have described:
Everthing you have said here is exactly what I have said: All computers are basically the same (turing machines) and everything they 'do' can also be calculated with a pencil and paper. I agree that this alone does not prove that they would not be a sufficent model for the human mind. But you will agree that there is not much consciousness or intelligence in a pencil and a paper. The only 'intelligence' that is added to the pencil and the paper is a program made by man. Of course only the man is intelligent not the program itself.
The problem is that the terms you use imply human abilities. E.g. you say 'They make decisions'. 'They' implies a 'me' which is not there in a machine, since all that happens in a machine is the passive processing of programs. Secondly, something that is deterministic resp. pre-programmed cannot make a decision, simply because - it is pre-programmed. Non-determinism in computers can only be introduced using a random generator in which case you can add a dice to the pencil and the paper. The 'learning' of computers is nothing more than a paraphrase for certain programing techniques, all of which may again be deducted from a simple turing machine. The same goes for all AI-related technologies like fuzzy logic, neuronal networks, self-modifying programs, etc.
Very good point and question. Again the question is are we talking about scientific aspects. The scientific explanation e.g. of sunrise does not compete with a theologic explanation of a divine creation. I agree that this competition was and still is a misunderstanding on both sides. We can get more into this if you want, but the size of this post is getting out of hand already :)
If consciousness somehow finds a way to inhabit this Frankenstein Monster, it would probably be like an identical twin. If not, it would probably be dead immediately. But just like you, I honestly don't know.
The problem with this thought experiment is that what you have in mind is not really a comlpete replica but an already reduced replica consisting only of the scientific aspects of the body according to the current scientific model (atoms, synapses, electrical potentials, etc.). Thus, the correct experiment would be to simulate the body according to the currrent scientific models in a computer (which should be sufficient according to your believes). In this case, I am sure that this 'program' would not be conscious or intelligent, for all the reasons I have already presented.
BTW, very interesting discussion so far!
id like to point out that your missing the point that there is no you apart from the biochemical reactions, this is why perception, thoughts, emotions can be altered with psychotrophic drugs. Your contention that there has to be a subjective you to witness your thoughts is a fallacy, this is how the brain is wired.
also, you seem to think that in order for intelligence to exist it must come from intelligence, your example of a computer needing intelligent input to be created, sounds like your saying intelligence or consciousness( you havent really defined it so the debate is all over the place) requires some pre-existing intelligent input which is incorrect. if this was the case then then the pre dated intelligence would also need intelligent input in order to exist, thus defeating your argument.
machines are capable of most of the faculties humans are, take jaberwockky for example, it mimics human conversation.
your making some very obvious fallacies with regards to human consciousness. i will admit it is an emergent property of the brain which may never be understood perhaps due to our lack of intelligence as a whole but to suggest there is something outside the brain, immaterial etc.. is easily dismissed.
-
If the thought is just a biochemical reaction, there is no 'you', which could consciously experience it.
I am a biochemical reaction without a fundamental identity apart from location and time.
Side note: I can assure you that I am not at all out of my realm of knowledge (I have studied computer science). Not that I think much education is necessary to understand the very easy principle of computers as you have described:
Calling the church turing thesis a basic and simple principle is ignorant. It was one of Hilbert's 10 problems and was unsolved by mathemeticians for quite awhile.
The problem is that the terms you use imply human abilities. E.g. you say 'They make decisions'. 'They' implies a 'me' which is not there in a machine,
This is unfounded and unsubstantiated. Who says that calling something 'me' or 'they' ascribes consciousness to a machine or a person. Both are a collection of atoms, nothing more.
since all that happens in a machine is the passive processing of programs. Secondly, something that is deterministic resp. pre-programmed cannot make a decision, simply because - it is pre-programmed.
Here you are showing your lack of understanding, a deterministic program can make decisions based on its input. What's more, in general we can't predict the eventual behavior or properties of a given program even if we can look at the parts and components (see Rice's theorem).
If you are going to get anyone to believe that there's something immaterial to reality then you had better present some conclusive evidence. If consciousness (which is an ill defined term to begin with) is all you have then you'll never have a convincing argument in my mind.
-
Let's see what Carl Sagan says about this issue. Ask yourself, if consciousness cannot be measured scientifically, then does it make a difference whether it is there at all?
by Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
-
I am a biochemical reaction without a fundamental identity apart from location and time.
Well the problem is that the statement 'I think' implies such a fundamental identity. This is a question of definition of the term thought, it always requires a thinker. When you talked about 'I' or 'your mind' quite obviously you had something in mind that is structurally different from the thought this mind has or reflects upon. If you are just a biochemical reaction, what exactly are you, the neuron, the atoms the neuron consists of, the electrical impulses, the process, the algorithm implemented by the processes?
Calling the church turing thesis a basic and simple principle is ignorant. It was one of Hilbert's 10 problems and was unsolved by mathemeticians for quite awhile.
I was talking about the outcome, which beautifully shows that basically all possible computers are the same. The actual deductive proof of it required a great mind, no doubt about it.
This is unfounded and unsubstantiated. Who says that calling something 'me' or 'they' ascribes consciousness to a machine or a person. Both are a collection of atoms, nothing more.
So if you are talking about 'you' it is of the same quality as when you talk about e.g. a coffee machine? You could say 'the coffee machine makes coffee'. Is there also an aware entitiy that makes the coffee and reflects upon doing so? Of course you can take the position that there is no awareness. As I said, the problem with this statement is that I know that I am aware. My question to you is, how can you be so sure that all you are is just a collection of atoms. Where is the scientific proof of that?
Here you are showing your lack of understanding, a deterministic program can make decisions based on its input. What's more, in general we can't predict the eventual behavior or properties of a given program even if we can look at the parts and components (see Rice's theorem).
Inputs external to the computer can be used in programs of course. However, you can still calculate the outcome of a deterministic program when a certain input is given. The algorithm will always produce the same results when given the same inputs (random generators aside). Rice's theorem does not invalidate that, If you think it does, please show me how. The point is that I cannot talk of a 'decision', if for every input (or series of inputs for that matter) given to the computer, the calculated output is already pre-determined.
If you are going to get anyone to believe that there's something immaterial to reality then you had better present some conclusive evidence. If consciousness (which is an ill defined term to begin with) is all you have then you'll never have a convincing argument in my mind.
I didn't come up with the material vs. the immaterial world, you did. What you are really talking about is what can be measured and what not. If we look at the scientific models for the material world, in the end there isn't really much there you could call 'material'. It's all a bunch of mysterious energy fields and particles that mostly consist of empty space and the parts that don't, you can't say what they really are. So even if we look at the 'material' world in a scientific way, there's not much tangible substance to it.
But as I said, maybe you can come up with some conclusive (scientific) evidence that all we are is just atoms? And then maybe you can tell me exactly what an atom really is?
-
Let's see what Carl Sagan says about this issue. Ask yourself, if consciousness cannot be measured scientifically, then does it make a difference whether it is there at all?
You can always take the position that it doesn't matter or that it doesn't exist. Scientifically, it makes no difference. You will never be able to prove or disprove its existance using scientific methods. But why should I discard an idea just because science by principle is not able to prove it's existance? The fact remains, I know that I am aware. What the article does is say: No, can't be true as long as we can't prove it scientifically, which unfortunally is not possible. This is trying to prove that a restriction is absolute by applying it in the first place. Doesn't make too much sense to me.
-
id like to point out that your missing the point that there is no you apart from the biochemical reactions, this is why perception, thoughts, emotions can be altered with psychotrophic drugs. Your contention that there has to be a subjective you to witness your thoughts is a fallacy, this is how the brain is wired.
There is a scientific aspect of what drugs do to you. However this does not prove that there is nothing more to the brain than it's scientific aspects and also not that there is nothing more to the human mind than the brain.
also, you seem to think that in order for intelligence to exist it must come from intelligence, your example of a computer needing intelligent input to be created, sounds like your saying intelligence or consciousness( you havent really defined it so the debate is all over the place) requires some pre-existing intelligent input which is incorrect. if this was the case then then the pre dated intelligence would also need intelligent input in order to exist, thus defeating your argument.
My argument was not that in order for computers to be intelligent you need intelligent input, my argument was that computers are not intelligent at all.
machines are capable of most of the faculties humans are, take jaberwockky for example, it mimics human conversation.
I'm not familiar with it but I assume it's a piece of software? In this case 'mimic' is all it can do. Computers can mimic alot of things but there is no consciousness behind it, just passive processing.
your making some very obvious fallacies with regards to human consciousness. i will admit it is an emergent property of the brain which may never be understood perhaps due to our lack of intelligence as a whole but to suggest there is something outside the brain, immaterial etc.. is easily dismissed.
You mean fallacies apart from what you wrote here, what are they?
I was not really talking about the immaterial, but let's go with that term, how is it easily dismissed?
I'm really interested in your input.
-
Inputs external to the computer can be used in programs of course. However, you can still calculate the outcome of a deterministic program when a certain input is given. The algorithm will always produce the same results when given the same inputs (random generators aside). Rice's theorem does not invalidate that, If you think it does, please show me how. The point is that I cannot talk of a 'decision', if for every input (or series of inputs for that matter) given to the computer, the calculated output is already pre-determined.
You can predict the next step or state of a deterministic machine. You can predict the nth state of a deterministic machine, but you cannot, in general, predict the final outcome of a deterministic machine or process. I don't have to prove this to you do I? You cannot pre-determine the output without simulating or running the machine in the first place, but that leads back to the original problem. Determinism is not the same as predictable. We can predict the next state of a machine, but we can't in general decide it's final outcome. I'm tired of debating this point with you when it's obvious you only have a cursory understanding of this topic.
I didn't come up with the material vs. the immaterial world, you did. What you are really talking about is what can be measured and what not. If we look at the scientific models for the material world, in the end there isn't really much there you could call 'material'. It's all a bunch of mysterious energy fields and particles that mostly consist of empty space and the parts that don't, you can't say what they really are. So even if we look at the 'material' world in a scientific way, there's not much tangible substance to it.
Material vs immaterial in my mind is equivalent to scientific vs superstitious. You are positing that there are things there that are material but aren't observable or understandable by science. Why wouldn't they be observable by science? If they can affect the material world (like consciousness) then they can be observed, tested, and are subject to the scientific method.
But as I said, maybe you can come up with some conclusive (scientific) evidence that all we are is just atoms? And then maybe you can tell me exactly what an atom really is?
Doing so is beyond the scope of a post on the internet, wouldn't you agree? We can agree that the atomic theory of matter is supported by mountains of evidence. I'd rather not go down an existential rat hole defining what an atom is.
-
You can always take the position that it doesn't matter or that it doesn't exist. Scientifically, it makes no difference. You will never be able to prove or disprove its existance using scientific methods. But why should I discard an idea....?
For the same reason you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster. It's unlikely to exist and it's existence makes no difference to reality.
-
You can predict the next step or state of a deterministic machine. You can predict the nth state of a deterministic machine, but you cannot, in general, predict the final outcome of a deterministic machine or process. I don't have to prove this to you do I? You cannot pre-determine the output without simulating or running the machine in the first place, but that leads back to the original problem. Determinism is not the same as predictable. We can predict the next state of a machine, but we can't in general decide it's final outcome. I'm tired of debating this point with you when it's obvious you only have a cursory understanding of this topic.
Material vs immaterial in my mind is equivalent to scientific vs superstitious. You are positing that there are things there that are material but aren't observable or understandable by science. Why wouldn't they be observable by science? If they can affect the material world (like consciousness) then they can be observed, tested, and are subject to the scientific method.
Doing so is beyond the scope of a post on the internet, wouldn't you agree? We can agree that the atomic theory of matter is supported by mountains of evidence. I'd rather not go down an existential rat hole defining what an atom is.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh....jizzed again............. ;D
-
There is a scientific aspect of what drugs do to you. However this does not prove that there is nothing more to the brain than it's scientific aspects and also not that there is nothing more to the human mind than the brain.
My argument was not that in order for computers to be intelligent you need intelligent input, my argument was that computers are not intelligent at all.
I'm not familiar with it but I assume it's a piece of software? In this case 'mimic' is all it can do. Computers can mimic alot of things but there is no consciousness behind it, just passive processing.
You mean fallacies apart from what you wrote here, what are they?
I was not really talking about the immaterial, but let's go with that term, how is it easily dismissed?
I'm really interested in your input.
no one can prove the negative but if your a logical person you would obviously admit that nothing immaterial has ever been observed, the universe is composed of matter/anti-matter etc... and all forms of matter such as energy. There has never been a shred of evidence for something immaterial, and by definition we could never have any, so your belief that there is something other then the material of universe is based on nothing, since the universe is material, and faith(an irrational belief). As if this is not enough take brain injuries via hypoxia, mechanical damage or pathology to particular brain structure(s) and observe its affects on consciousness, there are vast differences.
lets say there is a soul or something immaterial in the brain. First off your making the classical cartesian category mistake. On top of that say there is a soul which creates your consciousness, your YOU, the emotive being that experiences everything. Explain multiple personality disorder? these people show vastly different personalities, changes in immune assays (cd4+, cd8+), pathology(some retain or lose allergies) and accent, as well as temperments. These peole when interviewed believe they are different people and from all objective criteria they really are. Are there multiple souls in this being? how does this immaterial soul or souls interact within the being?. The idea of multiple soulds inhabiting a brain seems dubious and stretches creduality to its breaking point. However, its much easier to accept that the multiple YOUS is really just a brain malfunction, specifically a upset in neuropeptides, and generally a pathology of the brain as a whole.
i would ask whats your evidence for the immaterial also?
-
There is a scientific aspect of what drugs do to you. However this does not prove that there is nothing more to the brain than it's scientific aspects and also not that there is nothing more to the human mind than the brain.
My argument was not that in order for computers to be intelligent you need intelligent input, my argument was that computers are not intelligent at all.
I'm not familiar with it but I assume it's a piece of software? In this case 'mimic' is all it can do. Computers can mimic alot of things but there is no consciousness behind it, just passive processing.
You mean fallacies apart from what you wrote here, what are they?
I was not really talking about the immaterial, but let's go with that term, how is it easily dismissed?
I'm really interested in your input.
Alles nur Wunschdenken.
Ich selber glaube an das unsichtbare, fliegende, vierkoepfige Wienerschnitzel, das sich durch wissenschaftliche Mittel nicht beweisen laesst.
-
Ohhhhhhhhhhh....jizzed again............. ;D
Don't make Debussey jealous. :o
-
Don't make Debussey jealous. :o
Trapezkerl= not seen Lord of Madness in a while
MMC78= The Mechanistic Lord
Trapezkerl= maybe convert
-
You can predict the next step or state of a deterministic machine. You can predict the nth state of a deterministic machine, but you cannot, in general, predict the final outcome of a deterministic machine or process. I don't have to prove this to you do I? You cannot pre-determine the output without simulating or running the machine in the first place, but that leads back to the original problem. Determinism is not the same as predictable. We can predict the next state of a machine, but we can't in general decide it's final outcome. I'm tired of debating this point with you when it's obvious you only have a cursory understanding of this topic.
With all respect, I think there is a confusion of different levels of statements here, probably because I didn't make myself clear. If I have a computer in initial state and I load a program in it and then it performs one step at a time, each time using a set of a specific series of inputs, the outcome after the n'th step will always be the same. This behaviour clearly shows that the computer does not 'decide' anything. There is only passive processing which leads from step i to step i+1 and finally to step n. The computer doesn't go 'hmm, what should I do here', there is no choice. Of course, in general, you need to go through all of the steps at least once e.g. by running the program (or calculating everything with a pencil and paper), to know the outcome, I never questioned that. Rice's theorem talks about the possibility of making certain general statements about algorithms, it does not invalidate the deterministic behaviour of a deterministic machine. I don't think I used the term 'predictable'. If I did, sorry. I think this should clear up the misunderstanding.
Material vs immaterial in my mind is equivalent to scientific vs superstitious. You are positing that there are things there that are material but aren't observable or understandable by science. Why wouldn't they be observable by science?
Well, why would they?
What is your definition of 'material'.
Is 'Space' itself material?
If they can affect the material world (like consciousness) then they can be observed, tested, and are subject to the scientific method.
Interesting philosophic statement. Which scientific experiment leads you to this conclusion, that if something affects the material world it must be measurable? Is this a scientific theory or an absolute truth?
Doing so is beyond the scope of a post on the internet, wouldn't you agree? We can agree that the atomic theory of matter is supported by mountains of evidence. I'd rather not go down an existential rat hole defining what an atom is.
The point was that the atom is a scientific model of what the material world is made of, nothing more and nothing less. It is not equal to it. To believe that it is the same, you must pre-assume that there is nothing more to the world than its scientific aspects, which there is no scientific proof of. If this equality would hold true, one implication would be that the world consists of empty space with some small stuff in-between, we don't know what it is made of. Not a very satisfying answer to the question of material manifestation. Of course there is no certainty, that atomic theory (or better it's successors) will not be overthrown in the future by new scientific theories, but that's beside the point.
For the same reason you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster. It's unlikely to exist and it's existence makes no difference to reality.
The only thing that makes it unlikely for you (awareness that is) is that you cannot measure it scientifically, right?
It makes no difference to the scientific model of reality, the difference it makes in reality is that we wouldn't have this aware conversation, if awareness didn't exist.
-
Alles nur Wunschdenken.
Ich selber glaube an das unsichtbare, fliegende, vierkoepfige Wienerschnitzel, das sich durch wissenschaftliche Mittel nicht beweisen laesst.
Not once did I use wishful thinking or the need for faith in this thread, did I? ;D
-
no one can prove the negative but if your a logical person you would obviously admit that nothing immaterial has ever been observed, the universe is composed of matter/anti-matter etc... and all forms of matter such as energy. There has never been a shred of evidence for something immaterial, and by definition we could never have any, so your belief that there is something other then the material of universe is based on nothing, since the universe is material, and faith(an irrational belief).
For all you say here you must pre-assume that there is nothing more to the world than scientific aspects. Of course there is no scientific evidence that says otherwise, that is a logical consequence of reducing the world to its scientific aspects in the first place.
When you say, 'the universe is material', then what is Space?
As if this is not enough take brain injuries via hypoxia, mechanical damage or pathology to particular brain structure(s) and observe its affects on consciousness, there are vast differences.
I don't deny that the brain is a necessity for human consciousness and that its physical state has influence on it. But again, that does not prove that there is nothing more to the brain than what can be scientifically measured and also not that there is nothing more to consciousness than the brain.
lets say there is a soul or something immaterial in the brain. First off your making the classical cartesian category mistake. On top of that say there is a soul which creates your consciousness, your YOU, the emotive being that experiences everything. Explain multiple personality disorder? these people show vastly different personalities, changes in immune assays (cd4+, cd8+), pathology(some retain or lose allergies) and accent, as well as temperments. These peole when interviewed believe they are different people and from all objective criteria they really are. Are there multiple souls in this being? how does this immaterial soul or souls interact within the being?. The idea of multiple soulds inhabiting a brain seems dubious and stretches creduality to its breaking point. However, its much easier to accept that the multiple YOUS is really just a brain malfunction, specifically a upset in neuropeptides, and generally a pathology of the brain as a whole.
I never mentioned the term 'soul', we do not have to go that far. Quite obviously, I don't know exactly what goes on in another person, simply because I am not him. A scientist who scientifically examines such a patient also does not know that. Even if there would be multiple personalities in one being (which I very much doubt, and which is a very vague concept), still there is always 'someone' who experiences something.
i would ask whats your evidence for the immaterial also?
As I said, I am not really talking about material vs immaterial. I am talking about aspects of the world that cannot be measured or tackled scientifically. If we are looking for something that cannot be scientifically tackled, an easy example is the question: what is material made of? Science can always only find smaller particles but never explain what they are made of (apart from even smaller particles). So in the end, you cannot measure what matter is made of, it's simply beyond the scope of science. There is an infinite number of examples like that of course.
-
Interesting philosophic statement. Which scientific experiment leads you to this conclusion, that if something affects the material world it must be measurable? Is this a scientific theory or an absolute truth?
This is self-evident. If something affects the physical world, then it is by definition measurable. If something is measurable, then it's behavior can be analyzed via the scientific method.
The point was that the atom is a scientific model of what the material world is made of, nothing more and nothing less. It is not equal to it. To believe that it is the same, you must pre-assume that there is nothing more to the world than its scientific aspects, which there is no scientific proof of.
This is exactly what I believe. There is no proof, but there are mountains of evidence. Science has refuted the existence of thousands of gods, conquered superstition, and freed us from religious bondage. If there exists something that is not comprehensible via material scientific analysis, then it cannot not affect the material world.
If my awareness is immaterial, then how does it affect the movement of my hands over this keyboard? Is it the old pineal gland again?
By stating that the conscious is immaterial you must do one of two things: relegate the conscious to something impotent which cannot affect the material world, or explain how the immaterial conscious can influence and affect the material world.
This is the classic dualist paradox and I've never seen a logical resolution.
-
This is self-evident. If something affects the physical world, then it is by definition measurable. If something is measurable, then it's behavior can be analyzed via the scientific method.
By what definition should this be the case?
By definition, everything that is a physical (in the scientific sense) aspect of the world, is measurable, just because otherwise it would not have been included in the scientific realm to start with. But there is no definition that says that there can be nothing that affects what can be meausured, which itself cannot be measured.
This is exactly what I believe. There is no proof, but there are mountains of evidence. Science has refuted the existence of thousands of gods, conquered superstition, and freed us from religious bondage. If there exists something that is not comprehensible via material scientific analysis, then it cannot not affect the material world.
So believe is what you need? If there are mountains of evidence, name me one. We have already established that there can never be a scientific one. Why would you believe in something that has absolutely no scientific proof to it? Sounds alot like religious fundamentalism to me. :-X
BTW, I agree that science has freed us from alot of superstition, no doubt about that.
If my awareness is immaterial, then how does it affect the movement of my hands over this keyboard? Is it the old pineal gland again?
By stating that the conscious is immaterial you must do one of two things: relegate the conscious to something impotent which cannot affect the material world, or explain how the immaterial conscious can influence and affect the material world.
This is the classic dualist paradox and I've never seen a logical resolution.
Again, I did not bring up material vs. immaterial. This would suggest that science deals with the material world and everything else must be immaterial. This of course would be dualism. But this dualism only emerges if you start from the 'scientifistic' world view. I start from a holistic world view where science deals with scientific aspects only (according to the very definition of science).
E.g. if I examine a chair I can say that it is made out of wood and I can say that you can sit on it. Just two aspects of the same chair. There is no duality in that. Of course a 'woodist' would state that it's nonsense that you can sit on it, since it has nothing to to with the chair's woodyness and since it cannot be woodified, it must be abandoned.
I already stated that the pineal gland theory is nonsense. Simply because when talking about it in this way, we are staying in the scientific realm only, and thus, nothing can be sayed about it beyond it's scientific attributes to start with.
If you think science offers a satisfying explanation for the 'material' world, maybe you know what matter is made of? Or Space?
-
By what definition should this be the case?
By definition, everything that is a physical (in the scientific sense) aspect of the world, is measurable, just because otherwise it would not have been included in the scientific realm to start with. But there is no definition that says that there can be nothing that affects what can be meausured, which itself cannot be measured.
What you're saying is that that there's something which is immaterial and can't be measured but can affect the measurable physical world. This is exactly equivalent to my pink dragon that lives in my garage. Only I can see him, but try as you might, he can't be measured. He's incorporeal, and he's cute, and he breathes fire, and only I can see him, only I am aware of him, he's outside of science just like my distant relative jesus.
-
What you're saying is that that there's something which is immaterial and can't be measured but can affect the measurable physical world. This is exactly equivalent to my pink dragon that lives in my garage. Only I can see him, but try as you might, he can't be measured. He's incorporeal, and he's cute, and he breathes fire, and only I can see him, only I am aware of him, he's outside of science just like my distant relative jesus.
I am sorry but that's not what I said. We don't have to go as far as material vs. immaterial, I never made that distinction. This duality was introduced by you, not me. You again pre-assume that the difference between material and immaterial is the same as between scientifically measurable and not scientifically measurable. It's easy to show that this is not the case. I already brought a few examples: It is e.g. not scientifically measurable what matter is made of. So clearly there must be more to the 'material' world than just scientific models of it. And how about Space itself for a pink dragon, which is the very basis of all natural science? You cannot 'measure' the one infinite Space. It however seems to be the very precondition to our 'material' world. Do you believe Space exists?
-
I am sorry but that's not what I said. We don't have to go as far as material vs. immaterial, I never made that distinction. This duality was introduced by you, not me. You again pre-assume that the difference between material and immaterial is the same as between scientifically measurable and not scientifically measurable. It's easy to show that this is not the case. I already brought a few examples: It is e.g. not scientifically measurable what matter is made of. So clearly there must be more to the 'material' world than just scientific models of it. And how about Space itself for a pink dragon, which is the very basis of all natural science? You cannot 'measure' the one infinite Space. It however seems to be the very precondition to our 'material' world. Do you believe Space exists?
I won't even go that far and my argument still holds. Let's not make them equivalence classes, but rather let say that IF something is measurable then by definition it is understandable by the tools of science. I haven't seen one example to the contrary that suggests otherwise.
Your point as to what matter is made up of is seems to be irrelevant to this discussion. Matter can be defined via a functional, scientific definition. It behaves in certain ways according to a set of rules. What it is made up of is irrelevant. Like so many people you're ascribing a typical 'mid-world' anthropomorphic view of atomic and sub atomic particles.
-
I won't even go that far and my argument still holds. Let's not make them equivalence classes, but rather let say that IF something is measurable then by definition it is understandable by the tools of science. I haven't seen one example to the contrary that suggests otherwise.
This statement is too inaccurate. When you say 'If something is measurable', the question is what is included in this 'something'. E.g. the size of an atom is measurable (since by definition, size is a scientific property of the atom). This of course does not mean that what is really contained in what the atom is only a scientific model of, is understandable by the tools of science.
Your point as to what matter is made up of is seems to be irrelevant to this discussion. Matter can be defined via a functional, scientific definition. It behaves in certain ways according to a set of rules. What it is made up of is irrelevant. Like so many people you're ascribing a typical 'mid-world' anthropomorphic view of atomic and sub atomic particles.
The statement 'Matter can be defined via scientific definition' is also too inaccurate. It can either mean: 'The scientific aspect of matter can be defined via scientific definition', which is self-evident of course. Or it can mean 'Matter can be explained completely via scientific definition', which by definition of science alone is not the case. We have already established that the latter statement can never be derived from scientific methods, so it must either be an absolute truth - deducted via a different body of thought than science - or it requires belief (your words).
What you can say for sure is that you don't care about anything other than scientific aspects of things, because it's irrelevant to you. You're only interested in the scientific 'behaviour' of things. That's your choice of course.
-
This statement is too inaccurate. When you say 'If something is measurable', the question is what is included in this 'something'. E.g. the size of an atom is measurable (since by definition, size is a scientific property of the atom). This of course does not mean that what is really contained in what the atom is only a scientific model of, is understandable by the tools of science.
The statement 'Matter can be defined via scientific definition' is also too inaccurate. It can either mean: 'The scientific aspect of matter can be defined via scientific definition', which is self-evident of course. Or it can mean 'Matter can be explained completely via scientific definition', which by definition of science alone is not the case. We have already established that the latter statement can never be derived from scientific methods, so it must either be an absolute truth - deducted via a different body of thought than science - or it requires belief (your words).
What you can say for sure is that you don't care about anything other than scientific aspects of things, because it's irrelevant to you. You're only interested in the scientific 'behaviour' of things. That's your choice of course.
what you seem to be missing when you type "by the scientific method" is that your proposition is not observable, quantifiable by any measurement whether it is science or other. You seem to keep sliding the goal posts here, immaterial can never be observed as it would be imperceptable to us thus making your proposition futile.
please explain how you know things that cannot be measured, seen, observed, sensed etc can exist. I will be very interested in your theory.
-
what you seem to be missing when you type "by the scientific method" is that your proposition is not observable, quantifiable by any measurement whether it is science or other. You seem to keep sliding the goal posts here, immaterial can never be observed as it would be imperceptable to us thus making your proposition futile.
I must repeat myself again, I was never talking about the immaterial, I was talking about what is more than scientific aspects. What I can observe (yet not measure scientifically) is e.g. that I am aware. That I am able to experience this 'material' world. Since for me awareness is logically incompatible with a purely scientific view of the world, this is already proof enough. Without this awareness, of course, also scientific observations would be impossible in the first place, since it is always only an aware being that is able to make any observation, scientific or not.
There is of course a much simpler proof that reality is not equal to its scientific model: The very fact that science makes a model of reality. If I make a model of something, how can I ever expect that it should be equal to the real thing? The very meaning of the world 'model' implies a reduction.
please explain how you know things that cannot be measured, seen, observed, sensed etc can exist. I will be very interested in your theory.
First of all, I didn't say that. I can e.g. observe a tree. The scientific part of this observation is that (only in the sense of the current scientific model, of course) photons hit my retina, signals are sent to the brain, etc. But the most important part of this observation process is that the tree emerges in my awareness (which I know without any doubt), something that is not measurable. As much as the tree is more than just what the current scientific model say about it, my observation of it is also more than that. So I am just talking about a tree, not ghosts or pink dragons.
The question of existance is interesting of course. Again you pre-assume that nothing can exist that can't be measured scientifically. How can you be so sure about that and what scientific method led you to this belief? Science doesn't solve the problem of existance. If you think it does, please define for me scientifically what existance is. The only thing you will be able to come up with is 'everything that can be scientifically measured'. So you can only answer the question by stating what should have been proven in the first place.
I already brought two examples of things that cannot be scientifically measured but do exist: The thing matter is made of and Space itself.
-
Is insomnia measurable?
-
how about love?
-
Is insomnia measurable?
The number of hours you can't sleep sure is. :)
Is your insomnia a physical condition or is it just a restless mind?
-
The number of hours you can't sleep sure is. :)
Is your insomnia a physical condition or is it just a restless mind?
Wer weiss? Ich gehe morgen zur Schlafklinik, um das unter Dach und Fach zu bringen. Ich habe chronische Schlafstoerung seit etlichen Jahren, doch jetzt scheint sie ihren Hoehepunkt erreicht zu haben, und ich bin am Ende meiner Kraefte. Mittlerweile ist es zum ernsthaften medizinischen Problem geworden, das unbedingt behandelt werden muss.
Falls Du antwortest, bitte tu dies auf Deutsch....
-
Wer weiss? Ich gehe morgen zur Schlafklinik, um das unter Dach und Fach zu bringen. Ich habe chronische Schlafstoerung seit etlichen Jahren, doch jetzt scheint sie ihren Hoehepunkt erreicht zu haben, und ich bin am Ende meiner Kraefte. Mittlerweile ist es zum ernsthaften medizinischen Problem geworden, das unbedingt behandelt werden muss.
Falls Du antwortest, bitte tu dies auf Deutsch....
Ich kann nicht viel dazu sagen, ich hatte ebenfalls eine zeitlang Probleme damit, allerdings wohl nicht in diesem Ausmaß. Jetzt habe ich keinerlei Probleme mehr damit. Ich denke bei den meisten Leuten, die an Schlaflosigkeit leiden, ist es einfach die Unfähigkeit, die Gedanken zur Ruhe zu bringen.
-
Ich kann nicht viel dazu sagen, ich hatte ebenfalls eine zeitlang Probleme damit, allerdings wohl nicht in diesem Ausmaß. Jetzt habe ich keinerlei Probleme mehr damit. Ich denke bei den meisten Leuten, die an Schlaflosigkeit leiden, ist es einfach die Unfähigkeit, die Gedanken zur Ruhe zu bringen.
Das sowieso.
Ich arbeite schon seit zwei Jahren durch, ohne jegliche Pause, bis auf einen oder zwei Tage. Ich denke, dass ich einfach ueberarbeitet bin. Wenn ich nur 3 oder 4 Wochen von absolutem Nichtstun haette, wuerde sich das alles von selber bessern, bin ich mir relativ sicher. Leider ist das keine Option fuer mich...
-
Das sowieso.
Ich arbeite schon seit zwei Jahren durch, ohne jegliche Pause, bis auf einen oder zwei Tage. Ich denke, dass ich einfach ueberarbeitet bin. Wenn ich nur 3 oder 4 Wochen von absolutem Nichtstun haette, wuerde sich das alles von selber bessern, bin ich mir relativ sicher. Leider ist das keine Option fuer mich...
Wahrscheinlich werden die in der Schlafklinik aber auch nix anderes sagen, als dass du mal Urlaub nehmen solltest. Oder Sie pumpen dich mit einem Haufen Chemikalien voll - die amerikanische Methode ;D
-
Wahrscheinlich werden die in der Schlafklinik aber auch nix anderes sagen, als dass du mal Urlaub nehmen solltest. Oder Sie pumpen dich mit einem Haufen Chemikalien voll - die amerikanische Methode ;D
Letztere scheint leider die einzige Option zu sein....
-
Letztere scheint leider die einzige Option zu sein....
Nützt auch nicht viel, ein Job, wenn er einen ins Grab bringt.
Du weisst eh: Wer sich hat im Job zerrissen, dem wird noch aufs Grab geschissen.
-
how about love?
Same thing, of course. It's however always dangerous to come up with such big words in a discussion like that, which can be dealt with using much simpler terms.
-
The number of hours you can't sleep sure is. :)
Is your insomnia a physical condition or is it just a restless mind?
Wer weiss? Ich gehe morgen zur Schlafklinik, um das unter Dach und Fach zu bringen. Ich habe chronische Schlafstoerung seit etlichen Jahren, doch jetzt scheint sie ihren Hoehepunkt erreicht zu haben, und ich bin am Ende meiner Kraefte. Mittlerweile ist es zum ernsthaften medizinischen Problem geworden, das unbedingt behandelt werden muss.
Falls Du antwortest, bitte tu dies auf Deutsch....
Ich kann nicht viel dazu sagen, ich hatte ebenfalls eine zeitlang Probleme damit, allerdings wohl nicht in diesem Ausmaß. Jetzt habe ich keinerlei Probleme mehr damit. Ich denke bei den meisten Leuten, die an Schlaflosigkeit leiden, ist es einfach die Unfähigkeit, die Gedanken zur Ruhe zu bringen.
Okay, stop it or I'll start posting in Español. ;D
-
I must repeat myself again, I was never talking about the immaterial, I was talking about what is more than scientific aspects.
This is why I don't like debating with philosophers, debates focus around the meanings of words rather than any actual substance. If something is outside of the material world then it is not observable via science.
What I can observe (yet not measure scientifically) is e.g. that I am aware.
Your observation of awareness is itself a material process. It affects your actions. The fact that you think you are aware makes you continue this ridiculous argument. So now you've shown that immaterial things affect the material world. Along with the first point in this message, we have a contradiction.
That I am able to experience this 'material' world. Since for me awareness is logically incompatible with a purely scientific view of the world, this is already proof enough.
And the existence of the bible is proof enough to believe in the divinity of Jesus. I don't believe that there are un-measurable, un-scientific, immaterial forces at work because there is no evidence for them. You have failed to convince me that consciousness is beyond the realm of science.
I already brought two examples of things that cannot be scientifically measured but do exist: The thing matter is made of and Space itself.
Oh god, wtf. You mean to tell me that we can't measure energy or matter? Space is the absence of matter? Space is non scientific because we can't measure it? Space turns out not to be complete empty, it is measurable. The composition of matter is an active are of research. http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
Somewhere deep down, under all of those layers denial, you know that you are very likely wrong.
-
This is why I don't like debating with philosophers, debates focus around the meanings of words rather than any actual substance.
That is your perception just because science uses these words without questioning them (simply because, questioning them is without the realm of science). Nevertheless you make general statements using these words. Don't you agree that little can be said about something if we don't even have the slightest idea what we are talking about?
If something is outside of the material world then it is not observable via science.
So again, you define the material world by what is scientifically measurable. Meaning, you first introduce a dualism and then accuse everybody who argues that there is more to the world, that they are the dualists because they believe in something 'immaterial'. Isn't it obvious that this is not a valid argument?
Your observation of awareness is itself a material process. It affects your actions. The fact that you think you are aware makes you continue this ridiculous argument.
I understand your point of view, that's not the problem. The fact alone that we are talking about 'my observation of awareness' again already implies a 'me'. You will never be able to get around that, you always have in mind a conscious entity to begin with. Maybe you can answer my original questions regarding this line of arguments first: "If you are just a biochemical reaction, what exactly are you, the neuron, the atoms the neuron consists of, the electrical impulses, the process, the algorithm implemented by the processes?", "Is there also an aware entitiy in a coffee machine that makes the coffee and reflects upon doing so?"
So now you've shown that immaterial things affect the material world. Along with the first point in this message, we have a contradiction.
Since I never said that, it doesn't make any sense to answer the question.
And the existence of the bible is proof enough to believe in the divinity of Jesus. I don't believe that there are un-measurable, un-scientific, immaterial forces at work because there is no evidence for them. You have failed to convince me that consciousness is beyond the realm of science.
I never said anything about the bible or Jesus. For the other statements, the problem again is inaccuracy resp. invalidity of your definition of terms.
Oh god, wtf. You mean to tell me that we can't measure energy or matter? Space is the absence of matter? Space is non scientific because we can't measure it? Space turns out not to be complete empty, it is measurable. The composition of matter is an active are of research. http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
Funny because we already agreed on these questions, your response was that it didn't matter what the material world is made of. Concerning Space, please refer me to a scientific article that states 'Space is matter'. No loonatic pseudo-philosophic stuff, please. An article which uses scientific methods only to show that Space and matter are equal...
Or maybe this is a misunderstanding and what you are refering to is the question: Is there such a thing as completely empty space? That of course was not the topic. Empty or not, Space contains matter but is not equal to it.
The only thing about space, physics is concerned with, is that you can measure distances in (part of) space in three (or maybe more, according to some new theories) dimensions, thus forming a mathematical model of space which can be used for formulating scientific theories. Science of course recognizes that the one infinite Space is 'fundamental' for science, meaning, it cannot be defined within science but must be taken for granted.
Somewhere deep down, under all of those layers denial, you know that you are very likely wrong.
Wouldn't you agree that such an un-scientific statement should rather come from my crazy mystic ass than from you? I think we should stay on topic.
-
That is your perception just because science uses these words without questioning them (simply because, questioning them is without the realm of science). Nevertheless you make general statements using these words. Don't you agree that little can be said about something if we don't even have the slightest idea what we are talking about?
Philosophy seems to be more about questioning the meaning of words than understanding reality -- personal opinion though many would agree.
So again, you define the material world by what is scientifically measurable. Meaning, you first introduce a dualism and then accuse everybody who argues that there is more to the world, that they are the dualists because they believe in something 'immaterial'. Isn't it obvious that this is not a valid argument?
I understand your point of view, that's not the problem. The fact alone that we are talking about 'my observation of awareness' again already implies a 'me'. You will never be able to get around that, you always have in mind a conscious entity to begin with. Maybe you can answer my original questions regarding this line of arguments first: "If you are just a biochemical reaction, what exactly are you, the neuron, the atoms the neuron consists of, the electrical impulses, the process, the algorithm implemented by the processes?", "Is there also an aware entitiy in a coffee machine that makes the coffee and reflects upon doing so?"
For me, there is nothing more to the world than the material, measurable and scientific. Those three things are equivalent in my mind. Namely because I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.
The coffee machine isn't 'aware' like us because it's simple mechanics do not allow it to observe and react to a complex internal state such as the state of our brains. By my definition, you can say that a coffee machine which automatically turns itself off after 2 hours is somehow conscious of itself. Though that would be akin to calling a bacterium a genius.
I have a question for you. At what stage of evolution did consciousness arise? What kinds of animals possess consciousness?
-
First one is from the other thread:
You said that you can't prove this statement to be true with science. 'There is nothing more to the world than what can be said about it scientifically'.
I am saying the more general is true: Using X you cannot prove 'There is nothing more to the world than what can be said about it using X'.
It isn't something particular to science. S'all I'm sayin'.
I did not say that one can't prove the statement to be true within science, that was not the point.
As you wrote here, Gödel's theorems talk about the provability of statements (resp. the existance of unprovable statements) and the consistency of statements (resp. the existance of inconsistent statements) in a system. But for my deduction, neither provability nor consistency of the statement in question is relevant. The statement is simply redundant when made within science. If e.g. equality in a mathematical system is defined with A=A, the statement A=A itself is redundant within this system, because it just repeats one of the rules, the system is defined with. Since the statement in question, if made within science, must be reduced to a repetition of one of the system's definitions (as shown), it can only become non-redundant, if it is made in a different system than science. In this case however, it is self-contradictory (and therefore proved to be false).
I never questioned if philosphic statements exist that are unprovable or inconsistent, but that was not the point.
Philosophy seems to be more about questioning the meaning of words than understanding reality -- personal opinion though many would agree.
The only purpose of philosophy is to understand reality. The difference is, philosophy is able to make holistic statements, because it actually defines and deals with what is talked about. A real (pure) scientist can e.g. never say 'A human being is nothing more than a machine'. All he can say is 'The scientific model of a human being is (nothing more than) a machine'. Everything more than that is pseudo-philosophy.
For me, there is nothing more to the world than the material, measurable and scientific. Those three things are equivalent in my mind. Namely because I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.
Again, it is imopssible for you as a scientist to see any evidence to the contrary. You must reduce the world to what can be said about it's scientific model in the first place, if you do not want to leave the realm of science. And again you have the problem of your definition of 'material'. If you define it as 'what can be measured', of course you must say that it's equal to it, that's just a repetition of your own definition. So this statement is completely meaningless.
The coffee machine isn't 'aware' like us because it's simple mechanics do not allow it to observe and react to a complex internal state such as the state of our brains. By my definition, you can say that a coffee machine which automatically turns itself off after 2 hours is somehow conscious of itself. Though that would be akin to calling a bacterium a genius.
Well then let's define exactly what it is about a machine you think is conscious. What exactly is essential to us as human beings to have consciousness, and what could you get rid of? You mentioned e.g. a timer in the coffee machine. What exactly about the timer is it that should add this little piece of consciousness to the coffee machine? A timer can e.g. be implemented mechanically or electronically, does that matter? Is it the mathematical model of the timer? Is it the agorithm layed out e.g. on paper which would define the timing function? Is it the actual temporal processing that is implemented using the timer? What is essential and what not?
I have a question for you. At what stage of evolution did consciousness arise? What kinds of animals possess consciousness?
That's a tough question. The only consciousness we really know is human consciousness. More specifically, the only consciousness I am able to know is my own. You cannot say for sure if any other being has consciousness, there is no method, scientifically or otherwise, to prove that. Even worse, everything around me could be just an illusion, with no other consciousness than my own. That being said, from the resemblance we perceive, it is likely that all (at least all mentally healthy) human beings have consciousness of the same quality. Similarly, varying "degrees" of consciousness could be asigned to animals, depending on their resemblence to human behaviour. But in the end, it will always be left in the dark if and to what degree animals have consciousness.
The 'arisal' of consciousness as a result of evolution alone, is again a 'scientifistic' error in reasoning. We can get more into that if you want to.
-
I never questioned if philosphic statements exist that are unprovable or inconsistent, but that was not the point.
What is your point? That science cannot prove all self referential statements, therefore it can't prove anything?
The only purpose of philosophy is to understand reality. The difference is, philosophy is able to make holistic statements, because it actually defines and deals with what is talked about. A real (pure) scientist can e.g. never say 'A human being is nothing more than a machine'. All he can say is 'The scientific model of a human being is (nothing more than) a machine'. Everything more than that is pseudo-philosophy.
I don't want to open up the can of worms that is 'meaning'. You may guess that I do not subscribe to the same definitions of semantics that Searle does. Meaning to me is ironically meaningless. It is defined in terms of physical processes. The rules of these processes are the only 'meaning' in the universe that have ever been observed.
Well then let's define exactly what it is about a machine you think is conscious. What exactly is essential to us as human beings to have consciousness, and what could you get rid of?
We can agree that the brain (plus mind for you) is sufficient for human consciousness, so the physical body can go. We can imagine an idealized brain/mind living in a life sustaining bubble. Here's a thought experiment: let's take this brain, and replace a single neuron with a machine that perfectly replicates that neurons behavior. Question: is that brain still conscious? What if we repeat this process for the 100+ billion neurons, glial cells and other supporting cells. Is that brain still conscious?
You mentioned e.g. a timer in the coffee machine. What exactly about the timer is it that should add this little piece of consciousness to the coffee machine? A timer can e.g. be implemented mechanically or electronically, does that matter?
The timer gives the coffee machine state and logic that allows it to inspect and react to that state. This can be implemented using an hourglass and levers or an integrated circuit. The substrate doesn't matter. What is essential is it's functional behavior.
That's a tough question. The only consciousness we really know is human consciousness. More specifically, the only consciousness I am able to know is my own. You cannot say for sure if any other being has consciousness, there is no method, scientifically or otherwise, to prove that. Even worse, everything around me could be just an illusion, with no other consciousness than my own. That being said, from the resemblance we perceive, it is likely that all (at least all mentally healthy) human beings have consciousness of the same quality. Similarly, varying "degrees" of consciousness could be asigned to animals, depending on their resemblence to human behaviour. But in the end, it will always be left in the dark if and to what degree animals have consciousness.
What is a degree of consciousness? Are children conscious at the same level as adults? Why does consciousness correlate so strongly with the complexity of the brain? Does the mind make use of the brain's structure?
The 'arisal' of consciousness as a result of evolution alone, is again a 'scientifistic' error in reasoning. We can get more into that if you want to.
I don't see where you're going with this. Can you expand this idea?
[/quote]
-
What is your point? That science cannot prove all self referential statements, therefore it can't prove anything?
Not at all. I was not out to show what science can or cannot prove. This would not make any sense anyway, since science by definition alone doesn't prove anything.
Again, the point was simply that the statement 'There is nothing more to the world than what can be said about it scientifically' is either redundant or false. The misconception of a scientist is, that when he makes such a statement, he thinks he is still operating within science, when in fact he must already leave the realm of science for the statement to have any meaning. I don't know how else to put it, for me it's pretty simple and clear. The deduction is pure simple logic (see also next section).
I don't want to open up the can of worms that is 'meaning'. You may guess that I do not subscribe to the same definitions of semantics that Searle does. Meaning to me is ironically meaningless. It is defined in terms of physical processes. The rules of these processes are the only 'meaning' in the universe that have ever been observed.
Again this is a circular statement (basically the same as above). First you say, the only meaning there is to the universe is that of observable, scientific processes. If we look at this claim objectively, we would now ask: why? You are now allowed to any argumentation possible, except for one single argument: the scientific observability. Maybe an analogy helps:
A = World
B = Scientifically observable Aspects of the World
C = Aspects of the World not scientifically observable
By definition, B and C have no intersection and A is the sum of B and C. Your claim is that C = 0. Your argument for it is that you don't see any C in B. But this is obviously no argument, since B and C by former definition have no intersection. So if you want to argue that C = 0, you must find a different argument. Or you must admit that you have no argument, you only believe in it.
We can agree that the brain (plus mind for you) is sufficient for human consciousness, so the physical body can go. We can imagine an idealized brain/mind living in a life sustaining bubble. Here's a thought experiment: let's take this brain, and replace a single neuron with a machine that perfectly replicates that neurons behavior. Question: is that brain still conscious? What if we repeat this process for the 100+ billion neurons, glial cells and other supporting cells. Is that brain still conscious?
To be exact, I never said that there is a brain plus a mind. This is again dualism introduced by you. Correct would be: empirically, it looks like there is a scientifically measurable aspect of the mind. This aspect is the scientific model of the brain. Regarding your question, this is the same thought experiment as at the end of your Reply #45 in this thread. I already answered that question. A slightly new aspect you brought here is the gradual replacement of cells. The problem here is again, that you do not have in mind an exact replication of the mind but only a replication of the scientific aspects of it. The machine which perfectly replicates the neurons behaviour already implies that you are only talking about the scientifically observable behaviour of the cell and that there should be nothing to the mind than a collection of brain cells. If such a 'machine' only replicates the current scientific model of the cell, the end result (after replacing all the cells) will be an unconscious being (same thing as if you would simulate it in a computer). What would happen with resp. to the original consciousness, we don't know of course.
The timer gives the coffee machine state and logic that allows it to inspect and react to that state. This can be implemented using an hourglass and levers or an integrated circuit. The substrate doesn't matter. What is essential is it's functional behavior.
OK, so the actual implementation we can rule out. What is left IMO (when talking about functional - or better, scientifically observable - behavior) is the temporal processing of the algorithm and the algorithm itself. Which of these two is essential?
What is a degree of consciousness? Are children conscious at the same level as adults? Why does consciousness correlate so strongly with the complexity of the brain? Does the mind make use of the brain's structure?
All very good questions. But we are getting ahead of ourselves when trying to discuss them, and this is why: Your core belief is that nothing can be said about the world other than what is derived from science. So in your mind, these questions are already reduced to the following questions:
What is a degree of the scientific aspect of consciousness?
Is the scientific aspect of children's consciousness at the same level as those of adults?
Why does the scientific aspect of consciousness correlate so strongly with the complexity of the scientific aspect of the brain?
Does the scientific aspect of the mind make use of the structure of the brain's scientific aspect?
These are completely different questions in my mind (some of which redundant again). So as long as we cannot come to an agreement about the explanatory power of science, we will always talk at cross purposes. I can try to respond to the questions anyway, if you want to, of course.
I don't see where you're going with this. Can you expand this idea?
Quite simply, evolution is a biological theory. It can only explain biological aspects of the world. The'arisal' of consciousness - if stated in such a context - is just a pseudo-philosophical projection back in time, this time based on the misconception, that there should be nothing more to the world than its biological aspects and history.
-
Not at all. I was not out to show what science can or cannot prove. This would not make any sense anyway, since
Again this is a circular statement (basically the same as above). First you say, the only meaning there is to the universe is that of observable, scientific processes. If we look at this claim objectively, we would now ask: why? You are now allowed to any argumentation possible, except for one single argument: the scientific observability. Maybe an analogy helps:
A = World
B = Scientifically observable Aspects of the World
C = Aspects of the World not scientifically observable
By definition, B and C have no intersection and A is the sum of B and C. Your claim is that C = 0. Your argument for it is that you don't see any C in B. But this is obviously no argument, since B and C by former definition have no intersection. So if you want to argue that C = 0, you must find a different argument. Or you must admit that you have no argument, you only believe in it.
Haha, very nice, but I am not saying there is no C in B rather there is no C in A. That is a fundamnetally unprovable but extremely probably belief. Much like the belief that there is no god.
To be exact, I never said that there is a brain plus a mind. This is again dualism introduced by you. Correct would be: empirically, it looks like there is a scientifically measurable aspect of the mind. This aspect is the scientific model of the brain. Regarding your question, this is the same thought experiment as at the end of your Reply #45 in this thread. I already answered that question. A slightly new aspect you brought here is the gradual replacement of cells. The problem here is again, that you do not have in mind an exact replication of the mind but only a replication of the scientific aspects of it. The machine which perfectly replicates the neurons behaviour already implies that you are only talking about the scientifically observable behaviour of the cell and that there should be nothing to the mind than a collection of brain cells. If such a 'machine' only replicates the current scientific model of the cell, the end result (after replacing all the cells) will be an unconscious being (same thing as if you would simulate it in a computer). What would happen with resp. to the original consciousness, we don't know of course.
As an aside, I don't know why you don't consider yourself a dualist. You'll have to assert that science can't understand the material world. You've spoken about the limits of science, specifically the limits of the definitions of matter and space. These are somewhat axiomatic though.
You'll have to concede that science can't understand the material world, or that consciousness is immaterial. If you chose the first, you'll have to convincingly argue that science cannot no can it ever understand some phenomenon which is not axiomatic. I'd also ask you to provide a process or method that succeeds where science does not.
OK, so the actual implementation we can rule out. What is left IMO (when talking about functional - or better, scientifically observable - behavior) is the temporal processing of the algorithm and the algorithm itself. Which of these two is essential?
The algorithm is encoded into the material configuration. We can talk about the algorithm in an abstract way, but the actual implementation is just as valid of a representation. Or am I misunderstanding your question?
-
This is an awesome debate; right now I am jizzing all over the place!
Dies ist eine geile Debatte, gerade jetzt spritz ich ueberall ab!
-
Holy Shit...I just realised this is getbig and....this thread exists here..........holy fucking shit!
-
Haha, very nice, but I am not saying there is no C in B rather there is no C in A. That is a fundamnetally unprovable but extremely probably belief. Much like the belief that there is no god.
Thought you would come up with this.
Yes, what you are saying is that you think there is no C in A (same as saying C = 0), that's your original claim. But your argument for it is that there is no C in B. One is the claim, the other is the argument.
You claim: I don't think there is something to the world which cannot be scientifically measured (same as "no C in A" or "C = 0"). If asked why, your argument for it is that we have not yet scientifically measured anything which would show otherwise (no C in B). Right?
In any case, if you still think your original claim (no C in A) is the same as your argument for it (again, no C in A), quite obviously the argument is even weaker, because in this case, it's just an exact repetition of the claim - meaning no argument at all.
As an aside, I don't know why you don't consider yourself a dualist. You'll have to assert that science can't understand the material world. You've spoken about the limits of science, specifically the limits of the definitions of matter and space. These are somewhat axiomatic though.
Why axiomatic? By definition of science, it can only make statements about scientific models of the world. I have already explained why it isn't me who has introduced dualsim in the discussion. Furthermore, the problem we still have here is your definition of the term 'material world'.
You'll have to concede that science can't understand the material world, or that consciousness is immaterial. If you chose the first, you'll have to convincingly argue that science cannot no can it ever understand some phenomenon which is not axiomatic. I'd also ask you to provide a process or method that succeeds where science does not.
I honestly don't understand your point here, can you please be more elaborate? I could respond to what I think you mean, but it's probably better to explain in more detail first.
The algorithm is encoded into the material configuration. We can talk about the algorithm in an abstract way, but the actual implementation is just as valid of a representation. Or am I misunderstanding your question?
OK, I will rephrase the question. If we look at the claim 'a timer adds a bit of consciousness to the coffee machine', I think we must look at this claim in more detail. IMO, the claim can be split up into three main claims:
1. The actual form of implementation of the timer (mechanical, electrical, etc.) adds ...
2. The temporal processing of the timers algorithm adds ...
3. The (abstract) algorithm itself adds ...
The question is, which of these 3 claims is essential to the original claim? We have already ruled out #1. It is not essential to the added bit of consciousness if the timer is implemented electronically or otherwise. This means, we can get rid of #1 without changing the original claim.
So do you think #2, #3, or both #2 and #3 are essential?
-
This is an awesome debate; right now I am jizzing all over the place!
Dies ist eine geile Debatte, gerade jetzt spritz ich ueberall ab!
Somehow I get the feeling however, that it is not that much related to the discussion. You might just be fond of masturbation in general. ;D
-
And the existence of the bible is proof enough to believe in the divinity of Jesus. I don't believe that there are un-measurable, un-scientific, immaterial forces at work because there is no evidence for them. You have failed to convince me that consciousness is beyond the realm of science.
I think you're making the mistake that out current technology has progressed as far as it can go. 100 years ago, men couldn't land on the moon. How do you know in 50 years that we won't have a device that could measure an energy field emanating from a recently desceased person. There is evidence that suggests that a person's bodyweight measures something like 23 grams less, right after the moment of death. Do you know anything about Soviet research into Bio-physical energy fields and their use in remote viewing? Have you heard of Ingo Swan and how the CIA used him to verify locations for spying purposes, that have actual documentation. Not verything that exists can be measured by our current technology.
-
Thought you would come up with this.
We're getting ourselves onto a garden path here. I cannot "prove" via science that the supernatural doesn't exist.
I can make a more general statement though, if something is observable and measurable then it falls within the domain of science. If we come across something which cannot be explained within our current framework of science, then the framework expands to explain this new phenomenon. A classic example of this is the apparent vs expected orbit of Mercury. The observed orbit was a counter example to science's understanding of physics. It wasn't until the works of Lorenz, Maxwell and Einstein that we understood the reasons for this.
Why axiomatic? By definition of science, it can only make statements about scientific models of the world. I have already explained why it isn't me who has introduced dualsim in the discussion. Furthermore, the problem we still have here is your definition of the term 'material world'.
Science axiomatizes phenomenon which it doesn't fully understand. The value of pi, the charge of an electron, the strength of the nuclear force, etc. It isn't to say that we won't be able to explain it one day, but for now some concepts are taken as axioms.
I honestly don't understand your point here, can you please be more elaborate? I could respond to what I think you mean, but it's probably better to explain in more detail first.
What I'm trying to say is that if something is observable and measurable then it is necessarily material.
OK, I will rephrase the question. If we look at the claim 'a timer adds a bit of consciousness to the coffee machine', I think we must look at this claim in more detail. IMO, the claim can be split up into three main claims:
1. The actual form of implementation of the timer (mechanical, electrical, etc.) adds ...
2. The temporal processing of the timers algorithm adds ...
3. The (abstract) algorithm itself adds ...
The question is, which of these 3 claims is essential to the original claim? We have already ruled out #1. It is not essential to the added bit of consciousness if the timer is implemented electronically or otherwise. This means, we can get rid of #1 without changing the original claim.
#2 seems to be essential because without the ability to execute the algorithm it timer would never function. #3 I do not believe that the abstract idea is necessary i.e. with the blind watchmaker, evolution did not produce the human being according to a specific ideal. The algorithm is emergent from natural physical processes. The abstract algorithm seems to be a wholly human concept.
-
We're getting ourselves onto a garden path here. I cannot "prove" via science that the supernatural doesn't exist.
OK, I'll try again.
Let's be more specific. You cannot "prove" (scientifically that is) that there is nothing beyond what can be scientifically measured and specified via scientific models. For that however, my deduction would not be necessary, since science by definition alone cannot prove anything. So there is no need to show that. My deduction goes further than that. It shows that such a statement is redundant. This means the question of provability doesn't even arise. A redundant statement is always true, but meaningless.
Since I must assume that if a scientist makes such a statement, he is smart enough to realise that it would be redundant when made within science, he obviously has something more in mind when using the term "world" than what can be scientifically tackled. Then however, he has created a self-contradicting statement.
The reason why such redundant and circular thoughts arise in scientists is often their lack of ability to formulate exact statements. Why they don't recognize such a simple flaw in their arguments, I don't know. It seems to slip the mind of even some of the greatest scientists out there.
Your usage of the term "supernatural" is also such a simple error in reason that seems to have slipped your mind. The only definition you are allowed to have as a scientist for the supernatural in the first place, is 'everything that cannot be tackled by science'. In this case however, you can say absolutely nothing about the supernatural. So it's not that you cannot prove if it exists or not, it is that you are not allowed to talk about it at all, since by definition it is completely without the realm of science. Hence, as soon as you use the term 'supernatural', you are already a philosopher.
I can make a more general statement though, if something is observable and measurable then it falls within the domain of science. If we come across something which cannot be explained within our current framework of science, then the framework expands to explain this new phenomenon. A classic example of this is the apparent vs expected orbit of Mercury. The observed orbit was a counter example to science's understanding of physics. It wasn't until the works of Lorenz, Maxwell and Einstein that we understood the reasons for this. Science axiomatizes phenomenon which it doesn't fully understand. The value of pi, the charge of an electron, the strength of the nuclear force, etc. It isn't to say that we won't be able to explain it one day, but for now some concepts are taken as axioms.
Of course, these are the (very simple) principles of science. A theory is true until it is overthrown by the next theory which provides a better approximation.
When you are talking about new phenomenon, you are again only talking about the scientific aspect of new phenomenon, so this does not add anything essential. All that will ever be contained in a scientific model of the world is still just that, a mathematical model of it. This has nothing to do with what will be scientifically discovered in the future and what new scientific theories will arise that provide a better approximation of the scientifc aspects of the world.
This is also one of the simple errors in reason of scientists. When confronted with what is impossible within science, they take refuge in the future. But the future cannot change what is a matter of principle.
What I'm trying to say is that if something is observable and measurable then it is necessarily material.
If that's what you wanted to show, please rephrase, I did not understand your original argument.
#2 seems to be essential because without the ability to execute the algorithm it timer would never function. #3 I do not believe that the abstract idea is necessary i.e. with the blind watchmaker, evolution did not produce the human being according to a specific ideal. The algorithm is emergent from natural physical processes. The abstract algorithm seems to be a wholly human concept.
You stumped me there. I never thought that a statement like 'The abstract algorithm seems to be a wholly human concept' would come from you. I agree. This statement alone already disproves the original claim of course, but let's get not ahead of ourselves.
So what remains from the original statement is:
"The temporal processing of the timers algorithm adds a bit of consciousness to the coffee machine."
If we look at the scientific model (the algorithm) of such a timer, it would be something like:
for(t=0;t<limit;t++) Sleep(1);
The informational (scientific) value contained in the processing of the timer could be captured by printing the state of the machine in each processing cycle, assuming that the cycle is defined by Sleep(1), since nothing seems to happen in between, which would be essential to the timer. The state can be defined by the values of 't', 'limit', 't+1' and the result of 't<limit'. This seems to be all that can be scientifically said about the current state of this machine. So we temporally process the algorithm and get (with e.g. limit=5):
1. 't'=0, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=1, 't<limit'=true
2. 't'=1, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=2, 't<limit'=true
3. 't'=2, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=3, 't<limit'=true
4. 't'=3, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=4, 't<limit'=true
5. 't'=4, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=5, 't<limit'=true
6. 't'=5, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=6, 't<limit'=false
There is ends, since the temporal processing of the scientific model of the timer is over now. The problem we have now however, is that the informational value of what is now already written above, is exactly the same as the informational value produced during the temporal processing of the machine. We can look at the results all at once, we can even look at single lines in random order, the information contained in it is always the same. Nothing could be added to that e.g. by processing the scientific model of the timer again.
So the temporal processing of the timers algorithm can not be essential in adding consciousness to the machine. Since all three subclaims are disproved now, the original claim is also disproved.
-
OK, I'll try again.
Let's be more specific. You cannot "prove" (scientifically that is) that there is nothing beyond what can be scientifically measured and specified via scientific models. For that however, my deduction would not be necessary, since science by definition alone cannot prove anything. So there is no need to show that. My deduction goes further than that. It shows that such a statement is redundant. This means the question of provability doesn't even arise. A redundant statement is always true, but meaningless.
Since I must assume that if a scientist makes such a statement, he is smart enough to realise that it would be redundant when made within science, he obviously has something more in mind when using the term "world" than what can be scientifically tackled. Then however, he has created a self-contradicting statement.
The reason why such redundant and circular thoughts arise in scientists is often their lack of ability to formulate exact statements. Why they don't recognize such a simple flaw in their arguments, I don't know. It seems to slip the mind of even some of the greatest scientists out there.
Your usage of the term "supernatural" is also such a simple error in reason that seems to have slipped your mind. The only definition you are allowed to have as a scientist for the supernatural in the first place, is 'everything that cannot be tackled by science'. In this case however, you can say absolutely nothing about the supernatural. So it's not that you cannot prove if it exists or not, it is that you are not allowed to talk about it at all, since by definition it is completely without the realm of science. Hence, as soon as you use the term 'supernatural', you are already a philosopher.
Of course, these are the (very simple) principles of science. A theory is true until it is overthrown by the next theory which provides a better approximation.
When you are talking about new phenomenon, you are again only talking about the scientific aspect of new phenomenon, so this does not add anything essential. All that will ever be contained in a scientific model of the world is still just that, a mathematical model of it. This has nothing to do with what will be scientifically discovered in the future and what new scientific theories will arise that provide a better approximation of the scientifc aspects of the world.
This is also one of the simple errors in reason of scientists. When confronted with what is impossible within science, they take refuge in the future. But the future cannot change what is a matter of principle.
If that's what you wanted to show, please rephrase, I did not understand your original argument.
You stumped me there. I never thought that a statement like 'The abstract algorithm seems to be a wholly human concept' would come from you. I agree. This statement alone already disproves the original claim of course, but let's get not ahead of ourselves.
So what remains from the original statement is:
"The temporal processing of the timers algorithm adds a bit of consciousness to the coffee machine."
If we look at the scientific model (the algorithm) of such a timer, it would be something like:
for(t=0;t<limit;t++) Sleep(1);
The informational (scientific) value contained in the processing of the timer could be captured by printing the state of the machine in each processing cycle, assuming that the cycle is defined by Sleep(1), since nothing seems to happen in between, which would be essential to the timer. The state can be defined by the values of 't', 'limit', 't+1' and the result of 't<limit'. This seems to be all that can be scientifically said about the current state of this machine. So we temporally process the algorithm and get (with e.g. limit=5):
1. 't'=0, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=1, 't<limit'=true
2. 't'=1, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=2, 't<limit'=true
3. 't'=2, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=3, 't<limit'=true
4. 't'=3, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=4, 't<limit'=true
5. 't'=4, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=5, 't<limit'=true
6. 't'=5, 'limit'=5, 't+1'=6, 't<limit'=false
There is ends, since the temporal processing of the scientific model of the timer is over now. The problem we have now however, is that the informational value of what is now already written above, is exactly the same as the informational value produced during the temporal processing of the machine. We can look at the results all at once, we can even look at single lines in random order, the information contained in it is always the same. Nothing could be added to that e.g. by processing the scientific model of the timer again.
So the temporal processing of the timers algorithm can not be essential in adding consciousness to the machine. Since all three subclaims are disproved now, the original claim is also disproved.
So skirting past all the BS...what sort of magic powers/beings do you believe in?
-
So skirting past all the BS...what sort of magic powers/beings do you believe in?
It's only BS in the sense, that we must overcome it first. Your question clearly shows that. What you want to hear is something you can wrap your mind around and then discard as mystic bullshit.
The first step is to recognize that there is more than what we can comprehend using a certain restricted system. Philosophy of course is also such a system, although much less restricted, the restriction of it is thought itself.
Every credible religion - or better spiritual tradition - has one law: the divine can never be comprised by thought alone. Nevertheless we are able to experience it. The means by which we are able to do so are beyond thought. So everything I say about God will fall on deaf ears if you are only willing to listen with your mind - even worse, your scientifc mind.
Don't expect me to explain to you my belief in a few words here. The only thing I can do is try to scratch a little bit on the surface of the rusty minds. If you want to hear teachings of really enlightened beings, there are many out there, I am sure you will find one.
-
It's only BS in the sense, that we must overcome it first. Your question clearly shows that. What you want to hear is something you can wrap your mind around and then discard as mystic bullshit.
The first step is to recognize that there is more than what we can comprehend using a certain restricted system. Philosophy of course is also such a system, although much less restricted, the restriction of it is thought itself.
Every credible religion - or better spiritual tradition - has one law: the divine can never be comprised by thought alone. Nevertheless we are able to experience it. The means by which we are able to do so are beyond thought. So everything I say about God will fall on deaf ears if you are only willing to listen with your mind - even worse, your scientifc mind.
Don't expect me to explain to you my belief in a few words here. The only thing I can do is try to scratch a little bit on the surface of the rusty minds. If you want to hear teachings of really enlightened beings, there are many out there, I am sure you will find one.
first off this is a huge clusterfuck of pseudo-intellect (this thread)
secondly you have provided no sufficient evidence nor even a cogent argument as to why "there is more then we can comprehend"?
what is your evidence?
your asserting that the prevailing paradigm is in fact, incorrect.
-
first off this is a huge clusterfuck of pseudo-intellect (this thread)
... except for your contributions of course ;)
I agree in the sense that everything could have been argued on a much simpler level. Scientifically oriented people however have the tendency to bring up very complicated thought experiments, it wasn't my choice to make it this complicated. I know that what I wrote here is full of little inaccuracies too, but the essential parts (which could have been expressed in a much simpler way) are valid IMO. If you think all of it is BS, just join in again and show me where the BS is, I am always willing to learn.
secondly you have provided no sufficient evidence nor even a cogent argument as to why "there is more then we can comprehend"?
There is no reason to believe otherwise. What is quite obvious is that within a certain system we can say absolutely nothing about what's outside, which of course also includes provability. If we attempt to do so, we must either step outside the system into a larger one, or our concept of what's outside is obsolete to start with. Since this is true e.g. in respect to science vs. philosophy, logically there is no reason to believe that the same rules should not apply to thought itself. But you are right in the sense that there will never be a prove made by the mind which should show that there is something outside it. This again is impossible by principle.
But this isn't really what this thread is about, it's just about the limits of science within the greater system of the thinking mind. I hope I haven't offended anyone with my posts, it was not my intention. I just like identifying errors in reasoning. I think it's a pity if the only reason for someone not to bother with philosphy and spirituality is just a few simple misconceptions. As I mentioned before, nothing I say here is in any way original, much greater minds (including scientists who know about the limits of science) have said it much better than I ever could.
BTW, I would be interested in your opinion in my 'Question for the Scientists' thread.
-
Fact is, if there is more than what science can discover and grasp and we are limited to scientific means of understanding the world in a cogent and comprehensive manner, then anything that is BEYOND that methodology can hardly be talked about as anything but the basest speculation, if it can be talked about comprehensibly at all. If we were one day able to talk about the 'supernatural' in a rational fashion with specific explanations, it would no longer be the supernatural.
Anyway you look at it, it all goes back to Sagan's dragon....
-
Fact is, if there is more than what science can discover and grasp and we are limited to scientific means of understanding the world in a cogent and comprehensive manner, then anything that is BEYOND that methodology can hardly be talked about as anything but the basest speculation, if it can be talked about comprehensibly at all. If we were one day able to talk about the 'supernatural' in a rational fashion with specific explanations, it would no longer be the supernatural.
Anyway you look at it, it all goes back to Sagan's dragon....
Why should we be limited to scientific means of understanding the world in a cogent and comprehensive manner? Reason is not limited to science. Logic is not limited to science. Language is not limited to science.
What else is science than a speculation? You e.g. speculate that there could be something like a 'gravitational field' when in fact it could also be invisible leprechauns (or Sagan's invisible dragons) pushing around matter. As long as the mathematical model matches the scientific measurements, we can't tell. If what you have in mind of e.g. the gravitational field is more than just a few mathematical formulas, you have already created an invisible dragon in your mind. So if anyone can be accused of creating invisible dragons, it's the pseudo-philosophic scientists like Sagan. With science, and I quote: "We cannot tell what is real".
Again, science neither explains the natural, nor the "supernatural" (if you must introduce such a duality), it only makes scientifc models of it. You are right in the sense, that a scientist may choose not to bother with anything that's outside his scientific horizon. In this case however he is not entitled to say anything about what things are, what is real and what exists or not.
-
there is by defintion nothing outside the universe, it is infinite in its existence.
your argument is based on the assumption that there exists something outside of infinity which is a contradiciton of terms and falls apart as you have not defined what this "alternate" existence is, or how something can exist outside of the universe, aka time and matter.
-
Why should we be limited to scientific means of understanding the world in a cogent and comprehensive manner? Reason is not limited to science. Logic is not limited to science. Language is not limited to science.
What else is science than a speculation? You e.g. speculate that there could be something like a 'gravitational field' when in fact it could also be invisible leprechauns (or Sagan's invisible dragons) pushing around matter. As long as the mathematical model matches the scientific measurements, we can't tell. If what you have in mind of e.g. the gravitational field is more than just a few mathematical formulas, you have already created an invisible dragon in your mind. So if anyone can be accused of creating invisible dragons, it's the pseudo-philosophic scientists like Sagan. With science, and I quote: "We cannot tell what is real".
Again, science neither explains the natural, nor the "supernatural" (if you must introduce such a duality), it only makes scientifc models of it. You are right in the sense, that a scientist may choose not to bother with anything that's outside his scientific horizon. In this case however he is not entitled to say anything about what things are, what is real and what exists or not.
Sag Mal, kannst Du endlich, ganz einfach sagen, was es genau jenseits des Hiesigen gibt, was sich durch wissenschaftliche Methoden nicht untersuchen laesst, bzw. dadurch herausgefunden werden kann? Du tanzt kontunuierlich um diese Kernfrage herum, ohne dass Du die Karten auf den Tisch legst! Come on dude!
-
there is by defintion nothing outside the universe, it is infinite in its existence.
Agreed. Of course the question here is: what is infinity? Scientifically speaking, it's just a mathematical concept. But in any case, that is beside the point.
your argument is based on the assumption that there exists something outside of infinity which is a contradiciton of terms and falls apart as you have not defined what this "alternate" existence is, or how something can exist outside of the universe, aka time and matter.
I never said that there is something outside of infinity. I also never said anything about an "alternate" existence. Again, with science, you cannot say what exists or not.
-
Sag Mal, kannst Du endlich, ganz einfach sagen, was es genau jenseits des Hiesigen gibt, was sich durch wissenschaftliche Methoden nicht untersuchen laesst, bzw. dadurch herausgefunden werden kann? Du tanzt kontunuierlich um diese Kernfrage herum, ohne dass Du die Karten auf den Tisch legst! Come on dude!
(The question is what exactly should there be beyond what can be scientifically examined. The assertion is that I never named anything which would fall into this category.)
The answer is: I did over and over again in this thread, this is what this thread has been all about.
So here it is again:
- the stuff matter is made of.
- what space and time is.
- does space and time exist?
- what is consciousness?
- are we more than just passive machines?
- where do we come from?
- does anything exist or not?
- am I real?
- is anybody else real?
- what is reality?
- what is existance?
All areas and questions that cannot be tackled by science. They can be tackled by the human mind of course, but not if we restrict it to scientific methods in the first place. My point is that it is completely ludicrous to try to scientifically argue for or against e.g. the existance of God, if science by definition cannot answer any questions regarding existance or reality.
I would like to focus on the questions above rather than constantly showing the simple fact that science by definition cannot answer them. This would make a much more interesting discussion. But since this thread is about the differences between science and theology/philosophy, I argued that the difference is simply that science cannot answer these questions.
Just for a little reality check: Some of the greatest minds of all time were philosophers and theologists. Do you honestly think that they would have wasted their time, if it was that easy to discard everything by means of a simple-minded and self-contradicting world view such as scientific positivism? What we are talking about here on a philosophic scale is the lowest level possible.
Why such a simple error in reasoning has found its way into the minds of some popular scientists, I don't know.
-
(The question is what exactly should there be beyond what can be scientifically examined. The assertion is that I never named anything which would fall into this category.)
The answer is: I did over and over again in this thread, this is what this thread has been all about.
So here it is again:
- the stuff matter is made of.
- what space and time is.
- does space and time exist?
- what is consciousness?
- are we more than just passive machines?
- where do we come from?
- does anything exist or not?
- am I real?
- is anybody else real?
- what is reality?
- what is existance?
All areas and questions that cannot be tackled by science. They can be tackled by the human mind of course, but not if we restrict it to scientific methods in the first place. My point is that it is completely ludicrous to try to scientifically argue for or against e.g. the existance of God, if science by definition cannot answer any questions regarding existance or reality.
I would like to focus on the questions above rather than constantly showing the simple fact that science by definition cannot answer them. This would make a much more interesting discussion. But since this thread is about the differences between science and theology/philosophy, I argued that the difference is simply that science cannot answer these questions.
Just for a little reality check: Some of the greatest minds of all time were philosophers and theologists. Do you honestly think that they would have wasted their time, if it was that easy to discard everything by means of a simple-minded and self-contradicting world view such as scientific positivism? What we are talking about here on a philosophic scale is the lowest level possible.
Why such a simple error in reasoning has found its way into the minds of some popular scientists, I don't know.
Theology is hogwash. Philosophy may or may not have some merit to it. Once thing you are avoiding is factual content. Neither theology nor philosophy can ever talk honestly about facts, ergo Hirnwichserrei.
Watch Peter Atkins....you will hate him...
http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/watch/atkins.php
-
Theology is hogwash. Philosophy may or may not have some merit to it. Once thing you are avoiding is factual content. Neither theology nor philosophy can ever talk honestly about facts, ergo Hirnwichserrei.
Watch Peter Atkins....you will hate him...
http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/watch/atkins.php
Someone who just religiously repeats something over and over again that can be and has already been disproved by simple logic and calls everything else hogwash. Sounds familiar? :)
This has nothing to do with loving or hating science. I love science, but this doesn't mean that I must close my eyes regarding it's limits. Old Atkins is a great scientist and funny speaker, but this does not mean that he must be right in each regard. I could throw much greater thinkers at you, but I choose to actually argue in a discussion, not throw around names and theories.
-
Someone who just religiously repeats something over and over again that can be and has already been disproved by simple logic and calls everything else hogwash. Sounds familiar? :)
This has nothing to do with loving or hating science. I love science, but this doesn't mean that I must close my eyes regarding it's limits. Old Atkins is a great scientist and funny speaker, but this does not mean that he must be right in each regard. I could throw much greater thinkers at you, but I choose to actually argue in a discussion, not throw around names and theories.
I just wanted you to watch him. That's all.
We are never going to make progress, ever, through discussion because some of us (myself, unsmokepole, etc.) simply do not make the presuppositions concerning existence and reality that you do; if we did we could be regular Socrates all over again.
Is that you in the avatar btw?
-
I just wanted you to watch him. That's all.
That's fine, I know Atkins. The first thing he always must bring up is that theology and philosophy is stupidity and science is enlightenment. Then he goes on and on about how beautiful science is and how proud we should be. And then all his catch-phrases: 'Don't ask why, ask how', etc. I don't know why he has to do it, it's like he is on a crusade of some sort ::)
And I am sorry, but most of the questions asked in these 'discussions' are just ludicrious. He would be destroyed in a real discussion with a halfway decent philosopher. Just look at 32:00. This woman manages to destory everything he says in one minute. If he would have listened instead of just trying to look good, he would actually have learned something.
We are never going to make progress, ever, through discussion because some of us (myself, unsmokepole, etc.) simply do not make the presuppositions concerning existence and reality that you do; if we did we could be regular Socrates all over again.
For me it's quite obvious that it's not me making any presuppositions. Rather I showed why the presuppositions of scientific positivists (or reductionists) are illogical. I made a thread concerning these questions 'Question for Scientists', would be interested in your input there.
Is that you in the avatar btw?
Yes, from my rippest to my bulkiest :)
-
Continued here from the Prayer thread:
The point is that your proofs have failed to convince many of us here.
Yes, but why? I only used simple logic. Nobody was able to argue against it. Objectively I have to conclude that if you are still not convinced, you are in denial. Why else would you otherwise still believe in a statement that is either redundant or false? If my argument is so obviously wrong, just argue against it.
Why don't you start telling me if A) why questions are good questions and B) is why questions can ever be definitely answered by theology and philosophy?
I hope I understand correctly. You are referring to 'why-questions', right?
A) This is just a made-up issue. I already agreed that purpose should be left out of the discussion as long as it is still on the level science vs. religion. So just change every 'why-question' into a 'how-question'. Everything I said about these questions still holds true.
I have no concept of 'good' or 'bad' questions. Every question that comes to the human mind is just that - a question.
B) The framework, the human mind has for answering questions, is language and it's inherent logic. There are questions that can be definitely answered by the human mind. Namely, if a statement is e.g. illogical, it must be abandoned, that's definite. You concept of 'why-questions' is too broad. If you e.g. ask me if philosophy or theology can ever definitely answer the question 'why are we here', as in 'what is our purpose', the answer, the human mind must give, is No. Spiritual scripture however points us beyond the thinking mind.
In any case, Philosophy and Theology deal with all sort of questions. Not all questions can be answered satisfactory by the mind. But quite obviously the much more restricted framework of science also further restricts the number of questions which can be answered, so I can't see how this is an argument for the reductionistic world-view.
-
Continued here from the Prayer thread:
Yes, but why? I only used simple logic. Nobody was able to argue against it. Objectively I have to conclude that if you are still not convinced, you are in denial. Why else would you otherwise still believe in a statement that is either redundant or false? If my argument is so obviously wrong, just argue against it.
I hope I understand correctly. You are referring to 'why-questions', right?
A) This is just a made-up issue. I already agreed that purpose should be left out of the discussion as long as it is still on the level science vs. religion. So just change every 'why-question' into a 'how-question'. Everything I said about these questions still holds true.
I have no concept of 'good' or 'bad' questions. Every question that comes to the human mind is just that - a question.
B) The framework, the human mind has for answering questions, is language and it's inherent logic. There are questions that can be definitely answered by the human mind. Namely, if a statement is e.g. illogical, it must be abandoned, that's definite. You concept of 'why-questions' is too broad. If you e.g. ask me if philosophy or theology can ever definitely answer the question 'why are we here', as in 'what is our purpose', the answer, the human mind must give, is No. Spiritual scripture however points us beyond the thinking mind.
In any case, Philosophy and Theology deal with all sort of questions. Not all questions can be answered satisfactory by the mind. But quite obviously the much more restricted framework of science also further restricts the number of questions which can be answered, so I can't see how this is an argument for the reductionistic world-view.
You are playing with semantics. It is past midnight here so I will try to address this tommorow if possible.
-
Continued here from the Prayer thread:
Yes, but why? I only used simple logic. Nobody was able to argue against it. Objectively I have to conclude that if you are still not convinced, you are in denial. Why else would you otherwise still believe in a statement that is either redundant or false? If my argument is so obviously wrong, just argue against it.
You wish. Proof by vigorous assertion notwithstanding, show me your 'logical' argument that consciousness must exist outside of science.
- the stuff matter is made of.
- what space and time is.
- does space and time exist?
- what is consciousness?
- are we more than just passive machines?
- where do we come from?
- does anything exist or not?
- am I real?
- is anybody else real?
- what is reality?
- what is existance?
These are nice diversions but the fundamental question remains. Why do you insist that your mind is beyond the realm of science and the material world.
-
Why should we be limited to scientific means of understanding the world in a cogent and comprehensive manner? Reason is not limited to science. Logic is not limited to science. Language is not limited to science.
Explain why science is necessarily limiting for these topics.
What else is science than a speculation? You e.g. speculate that there could be something like a 'gravitational field' when in fact it could also be invisible leprechauns (or Sagan's invisible dragons) pushing around matter. As long as the mathematical model matches the scientific measurements, we can't tell. If what you have in mind of e.g. the gravitational field is more than just a few mathematical formulas, you have already created an invisible dragon in your mind. So if anyone can be accused of creating invisible dragons, it's the pseudo-philosophic scientists like Sagan. With science, and I quote: "We cannot tell what is real".
The difference is that there's no evidence for the existence of the invisible dragon whereas there is copious evidence for the existence of gravity. What's more, our model of gravity allows us to make incredibly accurate predictions whereas the pink dragon theory does not. I think you may have missed the point of that passage.
-
You wish. Proof by vigorous assertion notwithstanding, show me your 'logical' argument that consciousness must exist outside of science.
I was talking about the statement 'there is nothing to the world than what can be derived from science', which is the basis of the scientific-positivistic world view. The logical argument I used to show that such a statement can only be meaningless or wrong, but never true, is yet unchallenged.
But the same goes of course for the statement 'there is nothing to consciousness than its scientific aspects'. The deduction also shows in this case, that the statement cannot be true. I repeated the simple argument several times in this thread, so I don't think it's necessary to repeat again.
I honestly don't understand how someone can block out such simple logic from a discussion about the explanatory power of science.
These are nice diversions but the fundamental question remains. Why do you insist that your mind is beyond the realm of science and the material world.
Once again, the 'material world' must be left out of this discussion. For why the mind is more than its scientific aspects, see above. All I said in this regard is based on simple logic, its not me who is 'insisting' on anything.
And how is the question 'what is space and time' a diversion? Space and time are the basis of science, yet they are fundamental to it, meaning, they cannot be explained within science.
Explain why science is necessarily limiting for these topics.
The point was that it was assumed by Deicide, that the scientific limitations would also apply to reason, which is not true. If you want to know about the restrictions of science, just look it up in any encyclopedia. Science is restricted to mathematical models and scientific observations of the world.
The difference is that there's no evidence for the existence of the invisible dragon whereas there is copious evidence for the existence of gravity. What's more, our model of gravity allows us to make incredibly accurate predictions whereas the pink dragon theory does not. I think you may have missed the point of that passage.
Not at all, rather you have missed my point entirely. There is no (and can never be) scientific evidence whatsoever, that there really is something like a gravitational field, meaning a mysterious force field that would make bodies move in a certain way. If you are a pure scientist, all you are allowed to have in mind when talking about a gravitational field, is just a set of mathematical formulas predicting the motion of objects. Calling it a field, is only a helpful suggestion for the mind. But as soon as you believe that there really is something like this force field, you have created an invisible dragon. This 'field'-dragon does not come from science, it is purely made up by your mind. If instead of such a mysterious force field, you would have in mind mysterious invisible dragons, that would somehow manage to move the bodies in exactly the same way, scientifically it would make no difference at all. What Sagan and his positivistic friends don't understand is that their 'Field' is nothing else than an invisible dragon.
-
I was talking about the statement 'there is nothing to the world than what can be derived from science', which is the basis of the scientific-positivistic world view. The logical argument I used to show that such a statement can only be meaningless or wrong, but never true, is yet unchallenged.
But the same goes of course for the statement 'there is nothing to consciousness than its scientific aspects'. The deduction also shows in this case, that the statement cannot be true. I repeated the simple argument several times in this thread, so I don't think it's necessary to repeat again.
Once again, the 'material world' must be left out of this discussion. For why the mind is more than its scientific aspects, see above. All I said in this regard is based on simple logic, its not me who is 'insisting' on anything.
What you are insisting upon is that that consciousness absolutely cannot be explained by science, yet you have provided no evidence for this. This is a very different claim from insisting that there exist unprovable statements in science.
Not at all, rather you have missed my point entirely. There is no (and can never be) scientific evidence whatsoever, that there really is something like a gravitational field, meaning a mysterious force field that would make bodies move in a certain way.
Science is a modeling language and it's a predictive language. We believe in the theory of gravity because our model allows us to make incredibly accurate predictions about the nature and affects of this invisible force. It is not the same as an invisible dragon -- which has no affect on the outside world, nor whose behavior can be understood or predicted via scientific modeling. Do you see the difference?
-
Major Communication Meltdown.
-
What you are insisting upon is that that consciousness absolutely cannot be explained by science, yet you have provided no evidence for this. This is a very different claim from insisting that there exist unprovable statements in science.
OK, I will repeat once again:
We look at the statement 'All there is to the world can be derived from science'. This is the basis for the scientific-positivistic world view (Sagan, Dawkins, Hawking, Atkins, etc.).
If this statement is made from within science, it is completely meaningless. This is because, a pure scientist must reduce this statement to: 'All there is to the scientific aspects of the world can be derived from science', which is self-evident and therefore redundant.
In order for the original statement to have any meaning at all, it must therefore be made from without science. This means, a scientist who makes such a statement automatically becomes a philosopher - he must derive this statement from without science. Thus, we have created at least one statement about the world, which cannot be derived from science. Therefore it is self-contradictory and therefore false.
You can easily apply the same argument to the statement 'All there is to consciousness can be derived from science'. Scientifically, the statement must be reduced to: 'All there is to the scientific aspects of consciousness can be derived from science' -> redundant. To make it non-redundant, it is necessary to derive this statement from without science. Now we have created a statement about consciousness, which is not derived from science -> self-contradictory -> false.
Please tell me exactly where in this simple argument I insist on anything other than pure simple logic.
Please tell me exactly why you say I provide no evidence. Isn't simple logic evidence enough?
Please tell me where in this argument I talk about 'unprovable statements in science'?
This simple argument remains unchallenged in this whole thread. It requires no believe, faith, or insistence at all, just a little logic comprehension.
Science is a modeling language and it's a predictive language. We believe in the theory of gravity because our model allows us to make incredibly accurate predictions about the nature and affects of this invisible force. It is not the same as an invisible dragon -- which has no affect on the outside world, nor whose behavior can be understood or predicted via scientific modeling. Do you see the difference?
What you describe here is exactly the reason why inaccuracy leads to obsolete quarrels between philosophers/theologists and scientists. There are two sides of this argument. One is the scientific side and one is the philosophic side:
A) Scientific side:
We have the theory of gravity. If we stay within the scientific realm, all we have is a mathematical formula and scientific observations. As long as our scientific observations match the formula, the scientific theory holds true. That's it. In the mathematical formula, you will not find an actual 'force field'. The formula just predicts the motion of objects (resp. the force needed to stop them from moving).
A scientist tries to explain the theory of gravity by saying there is an 'invisible force field'. This is tricky. As long as he knows that he just uses the term 'force field' as a synonym for the mathematical formula - without an actual imagination of a real, mysterious, invisible field of force behind it - this is still fine. In this case he can still claim to remain within the realm of science. Of course, he doesn't really provide an explanation, just a different name for the formula.
B) Philosophic side:
The error of Sagan is that he must already imagine such a real field of force behind the theory of gravity to be able to compare it to the imagination of a real invisible dragon. Both theories are not scientific theories anymore, since they are made up by the mind as possible reasons for the scientific theory. The theory of the invisible dragon is not a competition to the scientific theory of gravity (the formula). Rather, the invisible dragon is competition to the philosophic theory of the invisible force-field.
Again, the simple thought experiment: Imagine that there are invisible dragons that somehow manage to move objects exactly in the way, the formula of gravitation predicts. For science it is impossible to determine whether the imagination of the mysterious force field or the imagaination of the invisible dragons is more valuable. Science is not concerned with it at all. There is no scientific evidence that would support one or the other philosophic theory.
That's why articles like the one from Sagan must be dismissed as pseudo-philosphy. He thinks he is still argueing from within science when in fact he must have already left the realm of science to write such an article. What slips his mind is the necessary step from the pure scientific theory to the imaginary explanation which is already outside of science.
-
You can easily apply the same argument to the statement 'All there is to consciousness can be derived from science'. Scientifically, the statement must be reduced to: 'All there is to the scientific aspects of consciousness can be derived from science' -> redundant. To make it non-redundant, it is necessary to derive this statement from without science. Now we have created a statement about consciousness, which is not derived from science -> self-contradictory -> false.
Let me generalize and rephrase (and I'm repeating myself here too):
'All there is to X can be derived from science'.
Scientifically, the statement must be reduced to: 'All there is to the scientific aspects of X can be derived from science' -> redundant. To make it non-redundant, it is necessary to derive this statement from without science. Now we have created a statement about X, which is not derived from science -> self-contradictory -> false.
You've proven that everything science says is either redundant or false. You've also proven all of philosophy redundant or false. This is kind of a cool paradox. I have to think more on how to reduce this to a more well known paradox. So you're either wrong or you have shattered the logic that guides all intellectual human endeavours. Smart money is on the fact that you're wrong.
Regardless, if the above can apply to ANY topic, then why is consciousness different?
A) Scientific side:
We have the theory of gravity. If we stay within the scientific realm, all we have is a mathematical formula and scientific observations. As long as our scientific observations match the formula, the scientific theory holds true. That's it. In the mathematical formula, you will not find an actual 'force field'. The formula just predicts the motion of objects (resp. the force needed to stop them from moving).
A scientist tries to explain the theory of gravity by saying there is an 'invisible force field'. This is tricky. As long as he knows that he just uses the term 'force field' as a synonym for the mathematical formula - without an actual imagination of a real, mysterious, invisible field of force behind it - this is still fine. In this case he can still claim to remain within the realm of science. Of course, he doesn't really provide an explanation, just a different name for the formula.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The formula is an approximation to reality. You seem to get hung up on this invisibility thing for some reason. Invisible things aren't special outside of the fact that your eyes can't perceive them, you have more interactions with invisible things each day than you do with visible ones.
B) Philosophic side:
The error of Sagan is that he must already imagine such a real field of force behind the theory of gravity to be able to compare it to the imagination of a real invisible dragon. Both theories are not scientific theories anymore, since they are made up by the mind as possible reasons for the scientific theory. The theory of the invisible dragon is not a competition to the scientific theory of gravity (the formula). Rather, the invisible dragon is competition to the philosophic theory of the invisible force-field.
Why? Why does an idea about the nature of gravity have to exist outside of science? Hypotheses formation is key to the scientific method.
Again, the simple thought experiment: Imagine that there are invisible dragons that somehow manage to move objects exactly in the way, the formula of gravitation predicts. For science it is impossible to determine whether the imagination of the mysterious force field or the imagaination of the invisible dragons is more valuable. Science is not concerned with it at all. There is no scientific evidence that would support one or the other philosophic theory.
If both theories provide the same predictive powers and are equivalently accurate, then the simple one wins. This isn't because we don't like dragons, it's because whether it's a dragon or a 'force field' isn't discernible at all. Your point is moot.
-
Let me generalize and rephrase (and I'm repeating myself here too):
'All there is to X can be derived from science'.
Scientifically, the statement must be reduced to: 'All there is to the scientific aspects of X can be derived from science' -> redundant. To make it non-redundant, it is necessary to derive this statement from without science. Now we have created a statement about X, which is not derived from science -> self-contradictory -> false.
You've proven that everything science says is either redundant or false. You've also proven all of philosophy redundant or false. This is kind of a cool paradox. I have to think more on how to reduce this to a more well known paradox. So you're either wrong or you have shattered the logic that guides all intellectual human endeavours. Smart money is on the fact that you're wrong.
Regardless, if the above can apply to ANY topic, then why is consciousness different?
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The formula is an approximation to reality. You seem to get hung up on this invisibility thing for some reason. Invisible things aren't special outside of the fact that your eyes can't perceive them, you have more interactions with invisible things each day than you do with visible ones.
Why? Why does an idea about the nature of gravity have to exist outside of science? Hypotheses formation is key to the scientific method.
If both theories provide the same predictive powers and are equivalently accurate, then the simple one wins. This isn't because we don't like dragons, it's because whether it's a dragon or a 'force field' isn't discernible at all. Your point is moot.
You are my champion Sir!
I have a background in the social sciences and humanities, yet am firmly a reductionist/positivist.
There is just something in Wavelength's arguments that fails to convince me; quite utterly actually.
-
Let me generalize and rephrase (and I'm repeating myself here too):
'All there is to X can be derived from science'.
Scientifically, the statement must be reduced to: 'All there is to the scientific aspects of X can be derived from science' -> redundant. To make it non-redundant, it is necessary to derive this statement from without science. Now we have created a statement about X, which is not derived from science -> self-contradictory -> false.
You've proven that everything science says is either redundant or false. You've also proven all of philosophy redundant or false. This is kind of a cool paradox. I have to think more on how to reduce this to a more well known paradox. So you're either wrong or you have shattered the logic that guides all intellectual human endeavours. Smart money is on the fact that you're wrong.
I don't see how this is a repetition, but very nicely done!
Except for one point: I have not proven that "everything science says is either redundant or false". What I (and apparently - you) have proven, is only that every statement 'All there is to X can be derived from science' is redundant or false (with X being of course a topic not already reduced to its scientific aspects by definfition alone). You are completely right in this regard.
This does of course not mean that science cannot say anything about the world, it just proves that there is more to the world than what science can say about it. E.g. the statement 'science can predict the (scientifically measurable aspect of the) motion of two objects using the formula for gravitation', is (at least empirically) true. So quite obviously, not everything science says is either redundant or false.
Regardless, if the above can apply to ANY topic, then why is consciousness different?
Perfect, I don't have to argue anymore.
You are again completely right. Consciousness is in no way different than any other topic. For each topic, there is more to it than science can say about it. Again, this does not mean that science can say absolutely nothing about it. What science deals with is the scientific aspects of the topic, namely, what can be scientifically observed and put into mathematical formulas.
As already mentioned in this thread, the statement can even be more generalized by using 'System Y' instead of 'Science'.
I have to conclude that my (and now also your) deduction remains unchallenged.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The formula is an approximation to reality. You seem to get hung up on this invisibility thing for some reason. Invisible things aren't special outside of the fact that your eyes can't perceive them, you have more interactions with invisible things each day than you do with visible ones.
A scientific formula is only an approximation to the scientifically measurable aspects of reality. I only brought up invisibility, because it is one of the properties of Sagan's Dragon - as well as the gravitational field.
Why? Why does an idea about the nature of gravity have to exist outside of science? Hypotheses formation is key to the scientific method.
Simply because the imagination behind a formula makes absolutely no difference to the scientific theory. Just try it. Imagine anything else (other than a field - whatever that may be) that causes objects to move in the way predicted by a scientific formula. You will see that scientifically it makes no difference at all. Of course such speculations are allowed to start moving things around and getting fresh ideas. But these imaginary speculations must not be confused with actual reality behind scientifically observed phenomena.
BTW, most scientists (even the positivists) agree with me on this point, it is a direct consequence of the restrictions of science.
If both theories provide the same predictive powers and are equivalently accurate, then the simple one wins. This isn't because we don't like dragons, it's because whether it's a dragon or a 'force field' isn't discernible at all. Your point is moot.
Exactly! You just confuted Sagan's article. His point is that we must dismiss the dragon, because we do not have any scientific evidence for it. Your point here is that you just like the idea of a force field better because it is simpler. The fact of the matter is, both imaginations are made up by the mind and cannot be derived from science.
-
There is just something in Wavelength's arguments that fails to convince me; quite utterly actually.
Well, what is it?
-
Well, what is it?
I think at core it is the fact that you have failed to convince (us) that theology or philosophy can say anything meaningful or correct about either consciousness or the universe. Mad ramblings and mental masturbation are not very descriptive, enlightening or anything else related, nor do they produce new knowledge. That's the point.
-
I think at core it is the fact that you have failed to convince (us) that theology or philosophy can say anything meaningful or correct about either consciousness or the universe. Mad ramblings and mental masturbation are not very descriptive, enlightening or anything else related, nor do they produce new knowledge. That's the point.
Why would you call a simple logic deduction mad rambling or mental masturbation? I see that logic fails to convince you, but shouldn't you at least ask yourself why? I would also prefer to fallback to the much simpler world view of scientific positivism, but logic prevents me to do so.
What I call mental masturbation is what e.g. Dawkins and Atkins do. They write books about a subject they have little to no knowledge of (philosophy and theology) and base it all on a self-refuting statement. As I have said before, this criticism is in no way original, any decent philosopher who actually takes the time to review their books comes to the same conclusion.
And I agree that this thread does not provide much enlightenment. But that's just because I am forced to repeat myself over and over again about a topic which is philosophic child's play. If you want enlightenment beyond scientific aspects, I would recommend substantial philosophic and spiritual scripture, not books written by pseudo-philosophic scientists.
-
Why would you call a simple logic deduction mad rambling or mental masturbation? I see that logic fails to convince you, but shouldn't you at least ask yourself why? I would also prefer to fallback to the much simpler world view of scientific positivism, but logic prevents me to do so.
What I call mental masturbation is what e.g. Dawkins and Atkins do. They write books about a subject they have little to no knowledge of (philosophy and theology) and base it all on a self-refuting statement. As I have said before, this criticism is in no way original, any decent philosopher who actually takes the time to review their books comes to the same conclusion.
And I agree that this thread does not provide much enlightenment. But that's just because I am forced to repeat myself over and over again about a topic which is philosophic child's play. If you want enlightenment beyond scientific aspects, I would recommend substantial philosophic and spiritual scripture, not books written by pseudo-philosophic scientists.
Philosophy is a lot of sophistry. Theology is just obfuscation and contrivance. Neither of these 'disciplines' gives us genuine knowledge. What do they do for us? Can they tell us about the brain? About the origin of language? About phonetics? About viruses? About DNA? About how to make a cool computer game? About why meditation works and how it works via the brain? No.
I get your 'logic'. It'a silly game of semantics. You say making statements about the world beyond the scientific, algorithmic model, disqualifies a scientist. Fine. They are then using 'philosophic' language. Who cares? The inferences and conclusions drawn are still based on testable data and fact. We are worm food. We are animals. Damage one part of the brain and consciousness doesn't work too well; damage it all and it ain't there. You want to call those philosophic statements, by all means go ahead and do so; it is science and the methodology, which has given us this information to spout in 'philosophic' language.
Boom, Wellenlaenge....boom...
A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and "theology." It remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about their origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?
Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.
It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover., in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?
-
Philosophy is a lot of sophistry. Theology is just obfuscation and contrivance. Neither of these 'disciplines' gives us genuine knowledge. What do they do for us? Can they tell us about the brain? About the origin of language? About phonetics? About viruses? About DNA? About how to make a cool computer game? About why meditation works and how it works via the brain? No.
Philosophy and Theology will not tell you much about the scientific aspects of what you asked here (simlpy because they are not specialized in that way). But science will not tell you anything about what things really are.
I get your 'logic'. It'a silly game of semantics. You say making statements about the world beyond the scientific, algorithmic model, disqualifies a scientist. Fine. They are then using 'philosophic' language. Who cares? The inferences and conclusions drawn are still based on testable data and fact. We are worm food. We are animals. Damage one part of the brain and consciousness doesn't work too well; damage it all and it ain't there. You want to call those philosophic statements, by all means go ahead and do so; it is science and the methodology, which has given us this information to spout in 'philosophic' language.
The problem is, you didn't get it. This is just again a repetition of the claim which has been already disproved. You again say that the 'conclusions are still based on testable data and fact'. What you mean by it is nothing else than 'based on science'. So the only argument you can come up with is again the scientific testability.
I know it sounds like a silly game of semantics. What is behind it is that all absolute statements about the nature of things are simply not derived from science (including the basic statements of scientific positivism). Let's put it this way: there must be something in you which enables you to make such a statement with belief and determination (although in this case the statment is false), which is beyond your scientific aspects.
"Making statements about the world beyond the scientific, algorithmic model" doesn't disqualify a scientist, it just disqualifies his claim that everything can be derived from science, since in this case he must obviously rely on something which is beyond it, whatever that may be.
I am not taking anything away from science. Science is incredibly interesting, it just has its limitations. The article you pasted here just adds the argument of science vs. superstition (confusing religion and philosophy with superstition). The article itself is of course a philosophic article, or better - a very poor attempt at it.
-
Philosophy and Theology will not tell you much about the scientific aspects of what you asked here (simlpy because they are not specialized in that way). But science will not tell you anything about what things really are.
The problem is, you didn't get it. This is just again a repetition of the claim which has been already disproved. You again say that the 'conclusions are still based on testable data and fact'. What you mean by it is nothing else than 'based on science'. So the only argument you can come up with is again the scientific testability.
I know it sounds like a silly game of semantics. What is behind it is that all absolute statements about the nature of things are simply not derived from science (including the basic statements of scientific positivism). Let's put it this way: there must be something in you which enables you to make such a statement with belief and determination (although in this case the statment is false), which is beyond your scientific aspects.
"Making statements about the world beyond the scientific, algorithmic model" doesn't disqualify a scientist, it just disqualifies his claim that everything can be derived from science, since in this case he must obviously rely on something which is beyond it, whatever that may be.
I am not taking anything away from science. Science is incredibly interesting, it just has its limitations. The article you pasted here just adds the argument of science vs. superstition (confusing religion and philosophy with superstition). The article itself is of course a philosophic article, or better - a very poor attempt at it.
I 'really' just want to concentrate on that.
You keep going on about the way things really are...
What on earth do you mean by that?
And what are things REALLY?
Ich warte mit angehaltenem Atem...
-
I 'really' just want to concentrate on that.
You keep going on about the way things really are...
What on earth do you mean by that?
And what are things REALLY?
Ich warte mit angehaltenem Atem...
Well, reductionists think that what things really are is just their scientific aspects.
Your questions implies that there is no reality at all. Is that what you are saying?
What is your definition of reality? Do you have such a definition?
It's funny you ask me about what reality is. You should exactly know what it is, since you constantly talk about it.
The question of reality in the end is the one and only subject to philosophy. If you want to, we can start a philosophic discussion about e.g.
- what time is,
- what space is,
- what matter is,
- what human perception is,
- what human awareness is,
- what morality is,
- etc.
You don't really expect me to answer all of these questions in a single post? Pick a subject and start a thread, this would make a much more interesting discussion, I already agreed on that. But you must be aware of the fact that it will turn out to be a philosophic discussion, if it should provide any substantial results.
-
Well, reductionists think that what things really are is just their scientific aspects.
Your questions implies that there is no reality at all. Is that what you are saying?
What is your definition of reality? Do you have such a definition?
It's funny you ask me about what reality is. You should exactly know what it is, since you constantly talk about it.
The question of reality in the end is the one and only subject to philosophy. If you want to, we can start a philosophic discussion about e.g.
- what time is,
- what space is,
- what matter is,
- what human perception is,
- what human awareness is,
- what morality is,
- etc.
You don't really expect me to answer all of these questions in a single post? Pick a subject and start a thread, this would make a much more interesting discussion, I already agreed on that. But you must be aware of the fact that it will turn out to be a philosophic discussion, if it should provide any substantial results.
An accident that was advantageous to the propagation of our DNA; then you can take it apart and see what it is composed of.
I have no idea what you BELIEVE it to be...but do tell.
-
An accident that was advantageous to the propagation of our DNA; then you can take it apart and see what it is composed of.
I have no idea what you BELIEVE it to be...but do tell.
By definition alone, awareness means that I am aware of things. It implies a conscious 'me' which is able to experience things. This awareness is the basis for everything which is possible in the human spectrum, including theology, philosophy, science, morality, spirituality, etc. The world as we speak of it - regardless of whether scientifically, or philosophically - does not exist at all without human awareness. This is because, the imagination of an objective world and a consciousness which it emerges in (as our picture of it) must be dismissed, since in this case the 'objective world' has already been subjectivied by the consciousness having such an imagaination. In this regard we can say that it is actually our awareness that produces the world we know (and not just the picture of it). What there should be without human awareness, we can never know (at least not with our thinking mind), since it completely eludes itself from it.
What you have presented is just a tiny scientific aspect of awareness, a tiny aspect BTW, which wouldn't even have arisen in anyone's awareness if awareness wasn't there in the first place. The only BELIEF that would be necessary is to actually think that this should be all there is to it. However, since this belief has already been logically proven to be false, it must be dismissed as blind faith.
-
By definition alone, awareness means that I am aware of things. It implies a conscious 'me' which is able to experience things. This awareness is the basis for everything which is possible in the human spectrum, including theology, philosophy, science, morality, spirituality, etc. The world as we speak of it - regardless of whether scientifically, or philosophically - does not exist at all without human awareness. This is because, the imagination of an objective world and a consciousness which it emerges in (as our picture of it) must be dismissed, since in this case the 'objective world' has already been subjectivied by the consciousness having such an imagaination. In this regard we can say that it is actually our awareness that produces the world we know (and not just the picture of it). What there should be without human awareness, we can never know (at least not with our thinking mind), since it completely eludes itself from it.
What you have presented is just a tiny scientific aspect of awareness, a tiny aspect BTW, which wouldn't even have arisen in anyone's awareness if awareness wasn't there in the first place. The only BELIEF that would be necessary is to actually think that this should be all there is to it. However, since this belief has already been logically proven to be false, it must be dismissed as blind faith.
Yup. I don't find much to disagree with but I think origins are crucial. The origins of awareness were to found on the plains of Africa...it proved useful to have such a faculty.
The non-random selection of random mutations....
-
Yup. I don't find much to disagree with but I think origins are crucial. The origins of awareness were to found on the plains of Africa...it proved useful to have such a faculty.
The non-random selection of random mutations....
If you read my previous post again, you will clearly see that you can't agree with it and at the same time state the above. The origin is awareness out of which science (and everything else) emerges, not the other way round. Your 'origin' can therefore again only be the origin of a tiny aspect of awareness.
-
If you read my previous post again, you will clearly see that you can't agree with it and at the same time state the above. The origin is awareness out of which science (and everything else) emerges, not the other way round. Your 'origin' can therefore again only be the origin of a tiny aspect of awareness.
I might be willing to agree with this statement. But all I can say now is...na und? :-\
-
I might be willing to agree with this statement. But all I can say now is...na und? :-\
So what?
It's 'only' what we have been discussing in this whole thread :)
If you start from a completely objective point of view when trying to investigate the world, you must start with your own awareness, simply because, this is what allows you to investigate anything. That's your one and only instrument to begin with. You can now say, OK I will use everything this instrument has to offer to investigate the world (philosophy), or you may choose to formulate a more restricted sub-instrument, to just investigate a certain aspect of the world (science). The essential point however is, that what you at least strip the world of, if you choose to make such a restriction, is it's capability of making such restrictions. This means, the part of awareness, which enables you to consciously formulate such a restriction, will not be found anymore in any model of awareness formulated from within the restricted system. Since the part of awareness, which enables you to consciously formulate restrictions, must be assumed to be its essential part - enabling it to consciously formulate anything - the essential part of awareness (what awareness really is) will not be found in the restricted system anymore.
Or, in a nutshell: In the smaller bubble of science, formulated by - and within - the bigger bubble of awareness, you will not be able to find awareness again. All you are able to find there is a mutilated version of it. What this mutilated version in the case of science is, has been elaborately discussed in this thread - namely, a computer.
The first error of reductionists is that they think their starting point is the objective world. What they forget is that this imagination is really only an already subjectivied version of the world emerging in their awarness. So the starting point for reductionists, in reality, is also awareness, not an objective world where they would be able to find awareness. Their second error is that - even if we allow their imaginary starting point of an objective world - they think that they will find everything there is to that objective world within a restricted system. As shown, this can easily be refuted by logic.
If you agree with the above, you agree to everything I have said in this thread, namely that science does not compete with philosophy and theology since it simply cannot answer the questions philosophy and theology are concerned with (what is time, what is space, what is awareness, etc.).
-
So what?
It's 'only' what we have been discussing in this whole thread :)
If you start from a completely objective point of view when trying to investigate the world, you must start with your own awareness, simply because, this is what allows you to investigate anything. That's your one and only instrument to begin with. You can now say, OK I will use everything this instrument has to offer to investigate the world (philosophy), or you may choose to formulate a more restricted sub-instrument, to just investigate a certain aspect of the world (science). The essential point however is, that what you at least strip the world of, if you choose to make such a restriction, is it's capability of making such restrictions. This means, the part of awareness, which enables you to consciously formulate such a restriction, will not be found anymore in any model of awareness formulated from within the restricted system. Since the part of awareness, which enables you to consciously formulate restrictions, must be assumed to be its essential part - enabling it to consciously formulate anything - the essential part of awareness (what awareness really is) will not be found in the restricted system anymore.
Or, in a nutshell: In the smaller bubble of science, formulated by - and within - the bigger bubble of awareness, you will not be able to find awareness again. All you are able to find there is a mutilated version of it. What this mutilated version in the case of science is, has been elaborately discussed in this thread - namely, a computer.
The first error of reductionists is that they think their starting point is the objective world. What they forget is that this imagination is really only an already subjectivied version of the world emerging in their awarness. So the starting point for reductionists, in reality, is also awareness, not an objective world where they would be able to find awareness. Their second error is that - even if we allow their imaginary starting point of an objective world - they think that they will find everything there is to that objective world within a restricted system. As shown, this can easily be refuted by logic.
If you agree with the above, you agree to everything I have said in this thread, namely that science does not compete with philosophy and theology since it simply cannot answer the questions philosophy and theology are concerned with (what is time, what is space, what is awareness, etc.).
I don't like that you conflate theology and philosophy. One can philosophise in a secular manner but theology in inextricably bound to religion, which is always a bad starting point...
-
I don't like that you conflate theology and philosophy. One can philosophise in a secular manner but theology in inextricably bound to religion, which is always a bad starting point...
That's fine with me. I am content with having you converted from a reductionsist to a philosopher, what a huge step. ;D
But all kidding aside, you are right of course. Realizing that there is more to the world than its scientific aspects does not necessarily mean that theology has any value or that there is a God. However, I think it is important to see that spirituality cannot be ruled out by the self-refuting arguments of positivists like Dawkins and Atkins.
-
That's fine with me. I am content with having you converted from a reductionsist to a philosopher, what a huge step. ;D
But all kidding aside, you are right of course. Realizing that there is more to the world than its scientific aspects does not necessarily mean that theology has any value or that there is a God. However, I think it is important to see that spirituality cannot be ruled out by the self-refuting arguments of positivists like Dawkins and Atkins.
Ich bin immer noch Reduktionist. Ich spiele halt mit, um Dir einen Gefallen zu tun. ;D
-
Ich bin immer noch Reduktionist. Ich spiele halt mit, um Dir einen Gefallen zu tun. ;D
No question about it. The purpose of such a discussion is not to convince anyone, this is impossible anyway. At least - I have never seen it happen. The only reason why egos discuss with each other is to build themeselves up.
Nevertheless, as long as no one is able to challenge my arguments, you must concede to me the right to remain on my point of view that reductionism is obsolete. I'm just not able to find a logic argument that would support it.
-
No question about it. The purpose of such a discussion is not to convince anyone, this is impossible anyway. At least - I have never seen it happen. The only reason why egos discuss with each other is to build themeselves up.
Nevertheless, as long as no one is able to challenge my arguments, you must concede to me the right to remain on my point of view that reductionism is obsolete. I'm just not able to find a logic argument that would support it.
Well, the fact that consciousness or awareness is a first I will not argue about. What is important to me is whether or not it is magic stuff or just a bunch of mechanical pieces forming a whole. You know what i think.
-
Well, the fact that consciousness or awareness is a first I will not argue about. What is important to me is whether or not it is magic stuff or just a bunch of mechanical pieces forming a whole. You know what i think.
I was not talking about any magic stuff, never, throughout this whole thread. You are again trapped in the cyclic thought of reductionism. The "bunch of mechanical pieces" is already within the smaller bubble, which the bigger bubble of awareness has formed in the first place. If you agree that awareness is a first, you cannot possibly reduce it to a bunch of mechanical pieces. That is exactly what I have shown in post #134.
-
I was not talking about any magic stuff, never, throughout this whole thread. You are again trapped in the cyclic thought of reductionism. The "bunch of mechanical pieces" is already within the smaller bubble, which the bigger bubble of awareness has formed in the first place. If you agree that awareness is a first, you cannot possibly reduce it to a bunch of mechanical pieces. That is exactly what I have shown in post #134.
Wellenlaenge, that's exactly what a reductionist does. Takes a big piece and reduces it to smaller pieces...awareness as a something may come first but in a hierarchy of its composition, it does not.
-
Wellenlaenge, that's exactly what a reductionist does. Takes a big piece and reduces it to smaller pieces...awareness as a something may come first but in a hierarchy of its composition, it does not.
OK, if you are talking about philosophic reductionism, that's something else. I would still oppose that, but that's a different - purely philosophic - topic.
I was talking about scientific reductionism. Meaning, that you take awareness apart after reducing it to its scientific aspects in the first place. So you only look at the pieces left over after the scientific reduction. Throughout this thread you have clearly shown that you take the view point of a scientific reductionist (e.g. "bunch of mechanical pieces").
If you agree with my post #134, we can philosophically discuss why I think that philosophic reductionsim must also be challenged.
-
OK, if you are talking about philosophic reductionism, that's something else. I would still oppose that, but that's a different - purely philosophic - topic.
I was talking about scientific reductionism. Meaning, that you take awareness apart after reducing it to its scientific aspects in the first place. So you only look at the pieces left over after the scientific reduction. Throughout this thread you have clearly shown that you take the view point of a scientific reductionist (e.g. "bunch of mechanical pieces").
If you agree with my post #134, we can philosophically discuss why I think that philosophic reductionsim must also be challenged.
Sigh..why must philosophic reductionism be challenged?
-
I have to go to bed but let me just say that these are the sorts of arguments we can have after we eliminate (intellectually speaking) the fundies from society, you know, people who believe in the Flood and talking snakes. We have much in common if we stick to that directive.
-
Sigh..why must philosophic reductionism be challenged?
;D
I think what you mean by that sigh is that you don't think it matters whether it's philosophic or scientific reductionism, right? Atkins would kill you for saying that. ;)
Scientific reductionsim can easily be ruled out by my post #134. For opposing your world-view nothing else is needed.
But here we go anyway:
If we take the position of a philosophic reductionist, we believe that we can take apart awareness philosophically e.g. by splitting it up into awareness of other things and self-awareness, and so on. If we then philosophically understand all the parts, we can put it all together again and understand what the whole thing is. The problem here is that we must assume in the first place that the complete information contained in awareness would be contained in the single pieces we believe it to be constructed of. There is no philosophic definition that splitting apart awareness in this manner would not take away essential parts of it. So by making such a preposition, we again construct a bubble within awareness, although much bigger than the scientific bubble. What we will never find in this bubble is the aspect of awareness that allows us to make a preposition like the one we need for philosophic reductionism. So although in this bubble, we will be able to find a much less mutilated form of awareness than in the bubble of scientific reductionsim, it will still be mutilated in some form.
I have to go to bed but let me just say that these are the sorts of arguments we can have after we eliminate (intellectually speaking) the fundies from society, you know, people who believe in the Flood and talking snakes. We have much in common if we stick to that directive.
I agree to some degree. For me, fundies and scientific positivists are very similar. Fundies think they can take spiritual scripture "literally", which in fact means "scientifically". They think that spiritual scripture competes with science. Scienitfic positivists think that - since everything can be explained through science - their scientific theories (also) compete with religion. This competition is a misconception on both sides.
However, for most "fundies", the main objective is not to oppose science. Their main objective is to follow the spiritual practice preached in scripture. Although what their egos think (and say) about this path maybe misleading, the purpose of all spiritual practice is to lead us beyond our thinking minds. So they may as well be on the path they need to go for their salvation, without really knowing why.